Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Green Party wish list.
Options
Comments
-
The Greens have agreed likely austerity in the second half of the governments term, that will cause a regressive reallocation - it will leave in place the main economic structures that cause a gigantic reallocation of money towards those who are better off (warped housing/rental market), and it will destroy progressive taxation through regressive carbon taxes, without producing any kind of progressive spending/taxation to offset that....
There is no increase in spending in the PfG - there is a reallocation of it. A proper cycling network in as many cities/towns as possible is an incredibly efficient use of funds and the best way to reduce congestion.
The Green's have weaponized green politics for the well off - to make it accelerate inequality.0 -
The Greens have agreed likely austerity in the second half of the governments term, that will cause a regressive reallocation - it will leave in place the main economic structures that cause a gigantic reallocation of money towards those who are better off (warped housing/rental market), and it will destroy progressive taxation through regressive carbon taxes, without producing any kind of progressive spending/taxation to offset that.
The Green's have weaponized green politics for the well off - to make it accelerate inequality.
Can you point us to the relevant sections of the PFG where the Greens have weaponized green policies and where they have agreed to austerity measures?0 -
Clarence Boddiker wrote: »Extremely disturbing to see that our Childrens Minister is an acquaintance and associate of Peter Tatchell, a man who has many times endorsed and advocated sexual relations between children and adults.
https://twitter.com/greenparty_ie/status/1013045330223489024?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1013045330223489024%7Ctwgr%5E&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs9e.github.io%2Fiframe%2F2%2Ftwitter.min.html1013045330223489024
Do youve any links or further info on that ? Disgusting if true0 -
But government finances are not immune to a credit crunch or interest rate hikes.How many times do people have to be told, that government finances don't work like household finances? There is a gigantic amount of money out there thanks to ECB policies, and the desperation of investors to throw money practitcally anywhere that will generate even a negative interest rate, so long as that interest rate is above the rate they borrowed at...
Again - government finances do not work like household finances, there are zero comparable analogies between business/personal/household finances, and government finances - stop talking about government finances like they operate that way, learn how they actually work.
Humungous levels of debt are a risk, and yes you alluded to Ireland favouring longer term debt so reducing risk... but the turnover in debt means sooner or later we could either have a problem getting subscribers for bonds or having to pay onerous interest rates. The markets aren't always going to be like today, it's prudent to prepare for that certainty. The other issue is indefinite large borrowing can be used by governments to cover up poor performance and buy votes with for example welfare payouts or tax cuts. So the borrowed money and risk has little or no intrinsic value to the economy.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Kermit.de.frog wrote: »Why do you keep saying this when it's not true?
Because he believes in magic money from the magic monkeySlava Ukrainii
0 -
The existing stock of debt is not affected by interest rate hikes - and you need to understand the economic conditions we're in, and that there is no potential for interest rate hikes anytime this half of the current decade at least.Tea drinker wrote: »But government finances are not immune to a credit crunch or interest rate hikes.
Humungous levels of debt are a risk, and yes you alluded to Ireland favouring longer term debt so reducing risk... but the turnover in debt means sooner or later we could either have a problem getting subscribers for bonds or having to pay onerous interest rates. The markets aren't always going to be like today, it's prudent to prepare for that certainty.
A credit crunch is something that happens in the private sector, and that displays the dangers of Private Debt - using Public Debt actually helps prevent credit crunches, by making a greater proportion of GDP depend upon Public Debt, instead of on Private Debt.
High Private Debt levels are incredibly dangerous. Public Debt is far safer than Private Debt.
The way you prepare for future uncertainty, is by maximizing GDP - and thus, reducing Public Debt vs GDP by maximizing GDP - not by holding back GDP growth.
That's just propaganda with no evidence backing it. Governments can't do their jobs without borrowing - and there are centuries of evidence backing that, showing that long-term, the stock of government debt permanently increases for all countries, over time (not Public Debt vs GDP though).Tea drinker wrote: »The other issue is indefinite large borrowing can be used by governments to cover up poor performance and buy votes with for example welfare payouts or tax cuts. So the borrowed money and risk has little or no intrinsic value to the economy.0 -
Because it is true.Kermit.de.frog wrote: »Why do you keep saying this when it's not true?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2018/04/30/governments-are-nothing-like-households/
Despite focusing on currency issuers, the article does cover the Eurozone as well.0 -
Again, use of the fallacious 'money tree' thought-terminating cliche - where you claim to know how money is created, but then you push a facetious term which heavily implies that you don't know how it is created - that is only compatible with you thinking it has to be dug out of the ground etc. like gold.Bass Reeves wrote: »Because he believes in magic money from the magic monkey
You seem to want to avoid trying to explain any of that as well. Can you explain how e.g. private banks creating money when they give out loans, does not precisely fit the 'magic money' term you are using? How stuff like QE does not precisely fit the term 'magic money'?
I mean, it's a term of disparagement, but what exactly are you achieving by disapraging the reality of how things actually work? It just makes you look ignorant.0 -
They're closing streets in Dublin to cars at weekends on a trial run, South William St and part of Drury St etc. It's amazing to see the comments on the Journal, saying things like "oh here we go the Greens have started already", as if this was in their PFG or they control DCC. I think any initiative like this now will be "blamed" on the Greens, especially if things don't go according to plan. I think it boils down to the usual old fogeys being afraid of any kind of change.0
-
Advertisement
-
Clarence Boddiker wrote: »Extremely disturbing to see that our Childrens Minister is an acquaintance and associate of Peter Tatchell, a man who has many times endorsed and advocated sexual relations between children and adults.
https://twitter.com/greenparty_ie/status/1013045330223489024?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1013045330223489024%7Ctwgr%5E&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs9e.github.io%2Fiframe%2F2%2Ftwitter.min.html1013045330223489024
Watch as an attempt is made to normalise pedophelia in the years to come. “Persecuted for their sexuality”, “discriminated against “ etc The Green Party along with the rest of the soy munching woke brigade will be at the cutting edge of this campaign of course.0 -
How many times do people have to be told, that government finances don't work like household finances? There is a gigantic amount of money out there thanks to ECB policies, and the desperation of investors to throw money practitcally anywhere that will generate even a negative interest rate, so long as that interest rate is above the rate they borrowed at...
Again - government finances do not work like household finances, there are zero comparable analogies between business/personal/household finances, and government finances - stop talking about government finances like they operate that way, learn how they actually work.
So are you saying that unlike say businesses, little old Ireland can continue to borrow and
a) the costs will not increase as our level of debt increases and out ability to repay lessens ?
b) we can borrow as much as we like for as long as we like ?
c) we will never reach a point where no one will lend to us, well apart from IMF/EU which will then effectively take over running of our country and force us to engage in firesale ?0 -
Thelonious Monk wrote: »They're closing streets in Dublin to cars at weekends on a trial run, South William St and part of Drury St etc. It's amazing to see the comments on the Journal, saying things like "oh here we go the Greens have started already", as if this was in their PFG or they control DCC. I think any initiative like this now will be "blamed" on the Greens, especially if things don't go according to plan. I think it boils down to the usual old fogeys being afraid of any kind of change.
to be fair that plan is insane and so many businesses will suffer. Theres two carparks on Drury street and a few on south William street that id imagine will be going to court over this.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 22733
Eric Cartman wrote: »to be fair that plan is insane and so many businesses will suffer. Theres two carparks on Drury street and a few on south William street that id imagine will be going to court over this.
The car parks aren't affected and will still be accessible.Access to all public carparks will remain.0 -
Any change will now be blamed on the Greens. They will be either too soft on FF/FG for being too right-wing, or too left-wing by the rabble on social media.
Now, the Greens are not without their faults, they have plenty, but in terms of their policy on public transport and more cycle lanes, they are mostly correct. (M20 aside)0 -
Eric Cartman wrote: »to be fair that plan is insane and so many businesses will suffer. Theres two carparks on Drury street and a few on south William street that id imagine will be going to court over this.
All the businesses on South Anne Street petitioned for this, never mind just being broadly supportive.
Pedestrianization benefits businesses. It increases footfall and spending.0 -
Eric Cartman wrote: »to be fair that plan is insane and so many businesses will suffer. Theres two carparks on Drury street and a few on south William street that id imagine will be going to court over this.
They wont suffer, it's been proven over and over that pedestrianisation is good for business.0 -
Do you know any business or household that's able to tax an entire economy (which keeps growing in size permanently) to back paying its debts, and which typically rolls over its debts forever, with a long-term permanently increasing stock of debt (not the same as percentage relative to GDP)?So are you saying that unlike say businesses, little old Ireland can continue to borrow and
a) the costs will not increase as our level of debt increases and out ability to repay lessens ?
b) we can borrow as much as we like for as long as we like ?
c) we will never reach a point where no one will lend to us, well apart from IMF/EU which will then effectively take over running of our country and force us to engage in firesale ?
The level of debt is not equivalent to our ability to repay - government bonds have different maturities, and can be spread out anywhere between a few months, all the way up to a century, or even perpetuity, before being repaid.
I never said 'b' or 'c', and 'c' is also a loaded question that assumes willingness to lend depends on our stock of debt.0 -
Do you know any business or household that's able to tax an entire economy (which keeps growing in size permanently) to back paying its debts, and which typically rolls over its debts forever, with a long-term permanently increasing stock of debt (not the same as percentage relative to GDP)?
The level of debt is not equivalent to our ability to repay - government bonds have different maturities, and can be spread out anywhere between a few months, all the way up to a century, or even perpetuity, before being repaid.
I never said 'b' or 'c', and 'c' is also a loaded question that assumes willingness to lend depends on our stock of debt.
You miss the one single point that destroys your argument.
Government in the EU no longer print money
Who do governments borrow from?
They borrow from banks and financial institutions.
These are businesses and every loan they give is a business decision.
So to try argue that government borrowing has nothing to do with business is not only stupid but totally disingenuous.
The banks might find it convenient to lend money to governments at the moment, but what will they say to a country which is deeply in debt to a dangerous degree if there is a significant worldwide recession or another banking collapse?
While it might be possible to borrow huge amounts of money at present, it might not be possible to borrow the same amount in 5 or 10 years time. If the government cant borrow the same amount that's as good as having to pay a enormous lump sum that would make the austerity after the banking crisis look like a picnic.0 -
You miss the one single point that destroys your argument.
Government in the EU no longer print money
I can think of at least 7 things which negates the argument for printing money as is being advocated before the fact that it is not governments which print it.
1 - It runs counter to fiscal responsibility to do so.
2 - It would cause inflation.
3 - It would ensure green projects would increase dramatically in cost.
4 - The electorate would not give any government a mandate to borrow in this manner
5 - If a government were to borrow in this manner, there would be a public outcry to fund some or all of the following areas before spending it on green projects.Housing/Healthcare/Childcare/Education
6 - It would undermine the responsibility people feel to make mortgage and loan repayments.
7 - It would increase the potential for a future financial crash.
I find it very depressing that the conversation on any positive action for the environment on Boards is pretty much limited to such a magical pipe dream.0 -
Advertisement
-
The discussion has never been about whether or not governments print money. That is a distinguishing feature of non-Eurozone countries - but it is not the determinant of whether or not government finances function like household/business finances.You miss the one single point that destroys your argument.
Government in the EU no longer print money
Who do governments borrow from?
They borrow from banks and financial institutions.
These are businesses and every loan they give is a business decision.
So to try argue that government borrowing has nothing to do with business is not only stupid but totally disingenuous.
The banks might find it convenient to lend money to governments at the moment, but what will they say to a country which is deeply in debt to a dangerous degree if there is a significant worldwide recession or another banking collapse?
While it might be possible to borrow huge amounts of money at present, it might not be possible to borrow the same amount in 5 or 10 years time. If the government cant borrow the same amount that's as good as having to pay a enormous lump sum that would make the austerity after the banking crisis look like a picnic.
Again, I ask:
Do you know any business or household that's able to tax an entire economy (which keeps growing in size permanently) to back paying its debts, and which typically rolls over its debts forever, with a long-term permanently increasing stock of debt (not the same as percentage relative to GDP)?
There is no household or business whose finances function like a governments finances - not even Eurozone countries.
Your post again assumes that a large stock of Public Debt = "in debt to a dangerous degree" - which is fallacious, as it is not the size of the stock of Public Debt which determines debt sustainability, it is the composition of that debt - the interest rate, the maturities, and what is done with the money itself even.
A worldwide recession = low to negative interest rates = readily available money for governments, through issuing government bonds...
Borrowing today isn't a requirement to borrow tomorrow, or whenever interest rates are higher...it's fallacious reasoning to forego maximizing GDP today, for fear of a half-a-decade-away-at-least rise in interest rates - especially because we can reduce our Public Debt vs GDP faster by then, through maximizing GDP...0 -
That is not what is being advocated, point to any post I've made where I advocate that...Tell me how wrote: »I can think of at least 7 things which negates the argument for printing money as is being advocated before the fact that it is not governments which print it.
1 - It runs counter to fiscal responsibility to do so.
2 - It would cause inflation.
3 - It would ensure green projects would increase dramatically in cost.
4 - The electorate would not give any government a mandate to borrow in this manner
5 - If a government were to borrow in this manner, there would be a public outcry to fund some or all of the following areas before spending it on green projects.Housing/Healthcare/Childcare/Education
6 - It would undermine the responsibility people feel to make mortgage and loan repayments.
7 - It would increase the potential for a future financial crash.
That makes all 7 points in your post, the equivalent of loaded questions. Even in that context, your statements are all wrong:
1: Balanced budgets are not 'fiscal responsibility', because government finances do not function like business/household finances.
2: Inflation outside of resource constraints, only occurs when an economy is at Full Output, i.e. when GDP is maximized and the economy is at Full Employment. Nobody advocates spending past that point (regardless of the means of spending...) - which means no position results in excessive inflation.
3: There is no circumstance where Green projects increase in cost - unless you mean the differene between doing them vs not doing them at all...
4: "Borrow in this manner" - what are you even on about, borrowing or printing? The ECB already facilitates our borrowing by buying our government bonds on the secondary market...A huge amount of the electorate is against austerity and for net government spending.
5: "In this manner" again, when what I'm advocating is just borowing the way government already is borrowing...We can fund all of those things at exactly the same time as Green projects, and we should, there are multiple crises due to lack of funding...
6: If people don't make mortgage or loan payments, they lose their home, and they lose whatever collateral they've pledged on other loans. Governments issue bonds all the time (which btw is all I've been arguing...), and so there is very much direct proof that you are wrong here.
7: High Private Debt levels cause financial crises - keeping GDP maximized with the help of Public Debt, reduces the pressure placed on Private Debt for sourcing the money needed to keep GDP maximized - which inherently makes financial crises less likely. Fiscal surpluses do the opposite, they create a greater reliance on Private Debt to keep GDP ticking along - which increases the likelihood of a financial crisis - so you have fiscal responsibility BACKWARDS...
It rather seems that you haven't read a single thing I've posted in the thread, you've just gone by assuming based on what others have said. Read what I have actually said, instead of wasting time/space in the thread, making me reply to such shite.
What I find depressing is that you have a genuine desire to see action on Green policies - yet you won't do even the minimum amount of learning about macroeconomics, to see that austerity/budget-balancing is almost universally agreed as bad policy among macroeconomists (even among ones I disagree with vehemently on other issues...) - yet you do not see that this is the single determining issue, on whether or not Green policies get enacted at a big enough scale!Tell me how wrote: »I find it very depressing that the conversation on any positive action for the environment on Boards is pretty much limited to such a magical pipe dream.
This is literally the single most important issue in all of green politics - it is the CORE thing determining whether or not action to stop climate change, will ever be big enough - and you hold the position which guarantees that even among those who agree something should be done, that we should not do enough...(solely because of a poor understanding of macroeconomics)0 -
The discussion has never been about whether or not governments print money. That is a distinguishing feature of non-Eurozone countries - but it is not the determinant of whether or not government finances function like household/business finances.
Again, I ask:
Do you know any business or household that's able to tax an entire economy (which keeps growing in size permanently) to back paying its debts, and which typically rolls over its debts forever, with a long-term permanently increasing stock of debt (not the same as percentage relative to GDP)?
There is no household or business whose finances function like a governments finances - not even Eurozone countries.
Your post again assumes that a large stock of Public Debt = "in debt to a dangerous degree" - which is fallacious, as it is not the size of the stock of Public Debt which determines debt sustainability, it is the composition of that debt - the interest rate, the maturities, and what is done with the money itself even.
A worldwide recession = low to negative interest rates = readily available money for governments, through issuing government bonds...
Borrowing today isn't a requirement to borrow tomorrow, or whenever interest rates are higher...it's fallacious reasoning to forego maximizing GDP today, for fear of a half-a-decade-away-at-least rise in interest rates - especially because we can reduce our Public Debt vs GDP faster by then, through maximizing GDP...
You're an idiot if you cant read and understand the point I made.
Its banks and financial institutions that lend money to governments.
These are businesses.
Any decision they make is a business decision.
do you understand that?
It doesnt matter how a government manages it lending and spending. It is always going to be dependent on a business decision, just not their business decision.
What is this nonsense about GDP? do you understand what it is ?
Gross Domestic Product has nothing whatsoever to do with debt.
It is the total amount spent on goods or services within a country NOT by a county or government.
Every government that has ever existed has tried to maximise GDP.
A government can only roll over its debt if a lender is prepared to lend the same amount again. Do you understand that?0 -
You're an idiot if you cant read and understand the point I made.
Its banks and financial institutions that lend money to governments.
These are businesses.
Any decision they make is a business decision.
do you understand that?
It doesnt matter how a government manages it lending and spending. It is always going to be dependent on a business decision, just not their business decision.
What is this nonsense about GDP? do you understand what it is ?
Gross Domestic Product has nothing whatsoever to do with debt.
It is the total amount spent on goods or services within a country NOT by a county or government.
Every government that has ever existed has tried to maximise GDP.
A government can only roll over its debt if a lender is prepared to lend the same amount again. Do you understand that?
I do not know why you try to debate the point with him. He has a fixation on the magic money from the magic monkey tree. Banks, business institutions all he has is this idea that by using the magic money from the magic monkey tree we can live in a utopian society.
These projects have tried and failed. He believed that we can increase wages and hire lads to pick strawberries at 15 euro/ hour. I just gave up trying to debate his fixation of this magic money from the magic monkey tree.Slava Ukrainii
0 -
I understand exactly what you are saying, and you are wrong - as I have detailed (without resorting to personal insults...) in my arguments.You're an idiot if you cant read and understand the point I made.
Its banks and financial institutions that lend money to governments.
These are businesses.
Any decision they make is a business decision.
do you understand that?
It doesnt matter how a government manages it lending and spending. It is always going to be dependent on a business decision, just not their business decision.
What is this nonsense about GDP? do you understand what it is ?
Gross Domestic Product has nothing whatsoever to do with debt.
It is the total amount spent on goods or services within a country NOT by a county or government.
Every government that has ever existed has tried to maximise GDP.
A government can only roll over its debt if a lender is prepared to lend the same amount again. Do you understand that?
You on the other hand, don't understand fundamental/basic things about what I have said: Such that I have NOT advocated money printing anywhere in this discussion...
It doesn't matter what reasoning businesses use in purchasing government bonds - for these reasons I have to repeat to you again, government finances do not work like household/business finances:
Do you know any business or household that's able to tax an entire economy (which keeps growing in size permanently) to back paying its debts, and which typically rolls over its debts forever, with a long-term permanently increasing stock of debt (not the same as percentage relative to GDP)?
As you know, the discussion of debt sustainability frequently revolves around Public Debt vs GDP - the sustainability of the economy and of Public Debt is best achieved through maximizing GDP - maximizing GDP requires persistent Full Employment. Austerity/budget-balancing governments do the opposite of maximizing GDP, they strangle GDP in order to reduce Public Debt vs GDP, when instead GDP must be maximized to reduce Public Debt vs GDP.
Whether or not a government has to roll over a particular set of bonds in the first place, depends on the structure of the bonds (their interest rate, their maturity), and the performance (GDP...) of the economy - and whether rolling over that set of bonds would be burdensome, further depends on macroeconomic conditions like the interest rate, the rate of inflation, and the method used to roll over the bonds. The macroeconomics of government bonds isn't as simple as "but high interest rates...at some indeterminate point the future..."
Do you understand that we will have low-to-negative interest rates, for perhaps most of a decade? That the potential for high interest rates - and thus rollover risk due to that - is about zero for at least that amount of time? That this provides the country with more than enough time, to end up with Public Debt vs GDP lower than 6 months ago - while keeping the economy at Full Employment through that whole time?0 -
Other posters seem to think that by this, you mean I am advocating printing money. Except I have not advocated anything like that in the thread. Neither have I said that about strawberry picking.Bass Reeves wrote: »I do not know why you try to debate the point with him. He has a fixation on the magic money from the magic monkey tree. Banks, business institutions all he has is this idea that by using the magic money from the magic monkey tree we can live in a utopian society.
These projects have tried and failed. He believed that we can increase wages and hire lads to pick strawberries at 15 euro/ hour. I just gave up trying to debate his fixation of this magic money from the magic monkey tree.
So a very simple question for you: Are you saying I am advocating printing money?
You seem to be resorting to deliberately lying about what I've been saying in the thread - and you refuse to explain what the above term is meant to mean, if that is not what you're implying by it. You are not removing yourself from debating at all, you are persisting in lying about what I have advocated.0 -
Bass Reeves wrote: »I do not know why you try to debate the point with him. He has a fixation on the magic money from the magic monkey tree. Banks, business institutions all he has is this idea that by using the magic money from the magic monkey tree we can live in a utopian society.
These projects have tried and failed. He believed that we can increase wages and hire lads to pick strawberries at 15 euro/ hour. I just gave up trying to debate his fixation of this magic money from the magic monkey tree.
His point would be valid if we could guarantee that the banks and financial institutions would lend what ever a government wants, when it wants.
There is no such guarantee.
That is why his whole idea is pointless. It simply would be totally irresponsible for a government to exceed its borrowing limits unless it had a cast iron guarantee that they could borrow what they want when they want.
Until KyussB can prove beyond doubt that banks and financial institutions will lend whatever amount a government want when it wants his whole theory collapses into nothing.0 -
There are no borrowing limits. They are suspended. In a negative interest rate environment, with QE, banking/financial institutions will lend to governments at close to the interest rate, with some spread for profits - giving us not only low interest rate bonds, but often negative interest rate bonds...
If you understand anything about why we have negative interest rates, why we have QE, and why the entire Eurozone is utterly dependent on this continuing (regardless of what my views on public finances are) - then you have no argument for this abundance of money for purchasing government bonds, stopping anytime this half of the decade, if not far longer...
Ample time for us to reduce our Public Debt vs GDP levels, far lower than even their lowest recent point - through maximization of GDP - and allowing Full Employment for the whole duration, while at it.0 -
There are no borrowing limits. They are suspended. In a negative interest rate environment, with QE, banking/financial institutions will lend to governments at close to the interest rate, with some spread for profits - giving us not only low interest rate bonds, but often negative interest rate bonds...
If you understand anything about why we have negative interest rates, why we have QE, and why the entire Eurozone is utterly dependent on this continuing (regardless of what my views on public finances are) - then you have no argument for this abundance of money for purchasing government bonds, stopping anytime this half of the decade, if not far longer...
Ample time for us to reduce our Public Debt vs GDP levels, far lower than even their lowest recent point - through maximization of GDP - and allowing Full Employment for the whole duration, while at it.
You keep telling others to understand and yet you are no prepared to do so yourself.
Borrowing limits have been suspended for the sole purpose of dealing with the covid crisis. The government cannot borrow beyond its agreed limits for anything not related to dealing with covid.
This conversation is over unless you are prepared to agree that any loan is a business decision made by the the banks and financial institutions.
Do you agree with that?
Do you also agree that there is no cast iron guarantee that the government can borrow as much as it wants whenever it wants?
If you disagree please provide the evidence of this guarantee.0 -
Advertisement
-
I've repeatedly debunked the exact same points you are bringing up again and again, and you don't listen - so you are failing to understand:You keep telling others to understand and yet you are no prepared to do so yourself.
Borrowing limits have been suspended for the sole purpose of dealing with the covid crisis. The government cannot borrow beyond its agreed limits for anything not related to dealing with covid.
This conversation is over unless you are prepared to agree that any loan is a business decision made by the the banks and financial institutions.
Do you agree with that?
Do you also agree that there is no cast iron guarantee that the government can borrow as much as it wants whenever it wants?
If you disagree please provide the evidence of this guarantee.
The borrowing limts are suspended. The economic crisis is part of the covid crisis. The Stability and Growth Pact deficit limits are unenforceable, due to having given favourable treatment to all of France, Germany, Spain and Portugal - and to attempt to enforce it, would trigger a fresh EU political/economic crisis.
That's a non-issue, a non-runner, and would result in a very welcome EU-level confrontation and reforms among all member states, if attempts to enforce it were issued.
You are asking me that question, regarding business decisions from banks/financial institutions - in order for you try try to claim that government finances work like household/business finances - and I have explained to you, how government finances do not operating like household/business finances, regardless of the decisionmaking banking/financial institutions use, in deciding whether to or not to purchase government bonds.
So your question is irrelevant - and I had already asked you before you ever asked that:
Do you know any business or household that's able to tax an entire economy (which keeps growing in size permanently) to back paying its debts, and which typically rolls over its debts forever, with a long-term permanently increasing stock of debt (not the same as percentage relative to GDP)?
Your last question is also a loaded question, assuming that the policies I advocate require such a cast-iron guarantee - they do not, as the need to borrow depends upon macroeconomic conditions and whether we are in a period of Full-Employment/Full-Output - and macroeconomic conditions now, and likely for most of the decade, all but guarantee an abundance of demand for government bonds.
We both know you're not going to leave the conversation there, as you claim - you're going to try to continue a rhetorical attack.0
Advertisement