Any properly functioning competitive market never actually sees excessive profits as there's always a competitor available seeking your market share by keeping margins low. And under the current cost-push shock, margins should always be constant anyway as costs should merely be passed on..

Ultimately, whether or not our society can 'afford' state pensions and an ageing population is a real productive capacity and distribution question. It has nothing at all to do with financing such arrangements. That's the easy part.

Economy wide changes such as a Job Guarantee (JG), Zero Interest Rate Policies (ZIRP), Bank Asset Regulation and Credit policies (BARC), socialised housing options, and Universal Basic Services (UBS) all act to reduce structural inequality, and allow for sustainable provision.

In doing so, the appropriate policy options to take become clearer. Primarily, pre- and re-distribution policies that curtail consumption from wealthier pensioners while improving the security of those at the bottom are central.

Longer read: I've written about how we should frame the challenge of provisioning retirement.

A crucial shift is adopting a real resource lens through which to understand the level, composition, and distribution of production that is needed.

open.substack.com/pub/jgs952/p...

Please explain how a buffer stock mechanism where JG absorbs slack in downturns and shed workers back to private firms in upturns is not counter-cyclical?

in the labour market dynamics a UBI of any considerable size would introduce.

How do you propose to stabilise the labour market and inflation dynamics originating from incompatible claims over national income? I presume the consumption to UBI recipients is redistributed via progressive taxes on the top half? Possible to be demand neutral as I argue but fundamental weakness

Incomes policies such as UBI are a favourite of many.

But here I argue you can achieve most of the social goals these policies seek to meet while also providing macroeconomic stabilisation via the labour market with a Job Guarantee.

open.substack.com/pub/jgs952/p...

Your car insurance company probably quites like holding your car insurance debt as its asset of deferred payment until they come to settle.

You're really not correct here. Each time you try to refute something you seem to misunderstand and talk about a different aspect.

If IOU, you have an asset.

You're still not understanding that an asset to you is a liability to the government.

Your phone bill debt is your phone company's asset. So they probably quite like holding that, yes.

I'd gladly accept them because I know I can use them to redeem my 8 RM debt to you later on and net save 2 RM for future use.

Would you agree that in "RM token" terms you're in neg. equity and I'm in +ve equity? And that after I pay my 8 RM debt by handing 8 back, you'll be in 2 RM of debt to me?

Sigh. I hope you're not trolling me and just genuinely don't understand. Let me try again.
Let initial conditions be that I owe you 8 "Real Macro" pieces of paper.
Then, if you want some sugar from me, do you agree that you can write "IOU 1 RM" on 10 pieces of paper and buy my sugar with them?

Right. So change the rules and you accept what I've given you is perfectly consistent accounting. And in nations where those rules don't apply, you're even wrong on that point. Do you agree?

So not "accounting 101" like you said then haha just a human made law which only applies in the US. Like I said, the UK's Consolidated Fund runs negative every day as the state spends (representing that negative fin. equity) before taxes get redeemed or net saving is adjusted to bond form.

Hahah what do you even mean it violates accounting 101?

Can you genuinely not understand how someone can write "IOU 100" on a piece of paper and give it to someone?

I've stripped everything back to the simplest it can be.

The state sector can spend because someone in the non-gov sector agrees to hold their liability. The gov goes into neg equity which is matched by the +ve equity of the non-gov. Everything financial sums to zero at all times.

This again 😅 What do you mean "spend a liability"? And by "cannot" do you mean "choose not to by dint of laws and rules in the US saying that the TGA has to be positive"?

You know the US isn't the only nation and UK's "TGA" is always negative intraday when spending occurs?

Household saving is defined as disposable income less consumption (S = Y - T - C = Yd - C).

Aggregate net non-gov saving is defined as total saving less investment (S-I).

By accounting definition, net non-gov saving must be the same as the sum of gov deficits and net exports (S-I = G-T - M-X)

Difference between saving and net saving ;)

I've written here about the nature of money and why understanding money properly has far-reaching implications for modern policy making, how we all think of the economy, and what we believe is possible.

open.substack.com/pub/jgs952/p...

... the US gov can spend $20tn tomorrow if it wanted to via Congressional and Presidential approval. The Fed would have no choice to facilitate the payments via getting around the arbitrary "+ve TGA rule" and new USD state IOUs would be issued (in the form of bonds).

.. enough TGA balance then the Fed and Tsy will coordinate to ensure the Fed conducts temporary OMOs to create the reserves in the system for Banks to purchase gilts from the Tsy to top up the TGA so the Tsy can spend. But this is *not* what you think it means...

Unless you can tell me who in the private sector issues sterling or dollar credits, you've got this confused. You think Mosler is is making a point that he is not. The Tsy-Fed consolidated gov system issues USD credits when it spends. No other way to create dollars. If the Tsy doesn't have a large..

None of those acts mean the UK doesn't issue sterling. Private sector can't create and issue sterling. You've got it the wrong way round for some reason

It literally can't be counterfeiting for the nation state government to create and issue currency..

And I've told you how it works.The state sector (Tsy and BoE) coordinate to issue new state IOUs every time it spends.Taxes reverse this process by redeeming those IOUs.The excess is put in bond form

You're confused again. You must realise if a private actor issues currency, it's counterfeiting, right?

You believe the private sector creates and issues the state currency into existence do you? Interesting

You're nearly there. So where to the currency credits used to pay taxes or buy bonds come from originally?

You're again confused. We're not talking about bonds. Forget them for now. When I say the state spends by issuing an IOU, I'm referring to state currency. The USD or GBP, etc. This is how it works I promise you. It's a credit-based state monetary system driven by coercive tax liabilities.