[PEN-L:385] Re: Re: Naive question on Japanese Debt

[michael perelman <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, Randy is correct, but, suppose that the crisis in Thailand had not been
seen as serious.  Japan might have cruised along for a year or more perhaps
without the public noticing any debt "crisis."

Suppose that instead of a debt crisis, the government had levied a heavy tax on
banks and the zaibatsu, then spent the money on public works.  It would have
been a pure transfer, yes, as Randy notes with both sides of the balance sheets
affected.  So, let the government use the money to bury in bottles.


So I still want to continue with my naive question.

Mathew Forstater wrote:

> Michael- I forwarded your post to Randy Wray, since he talked about those
> stones in a recent paper.  His reply:
>
> >japanese debt has 2 sides, an asset and a liability. the stones are only an
> asset.
> >actually, of course, the stones aren't money at all. it is only when the
> >germans tax them (removing symbolic wealth) that they have any "moneyness".
>
> I think I have a copy of his paper if you're interested.
>
> michael perelman wrote:
>
> > I want to ask a question about Japanese debt by beginning with some
> > notes that I have taken:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Now, my naive question:  How is the revelation of the $1 billion in
> > Japanese debt different from the sinking of the Uap's fei?
> > --
> > Michael Perelman
> > Economics Department
> > California State University
> > Chico, CA 95929
> >
> > Tel. 530-898-5321
> > E-Mail michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx