Re: Gov't Spending to Improve US, too.

["Hugh Whinfrey" <econ@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

A few points based on recent postings showing how basic
equivalence relationships can still serve as a useful guide in
cutting through all the ideology:

1) The result of ceaseless hyperinflation (perpetual deficit spending)
without any exit options for the players will necessarily be as brutal
as Bolshevism. I.e. what it was that happened before NEP returned
some sanity back to rescue the ideologues in the 1920s and then
again as it was in turn replaced with forced collectivisation
during Stalin's consolidation of power. Otherwise folks will find
a way around it.

We seem to be blindly flirting with a similar future now by not
caring to look at how 'reality' tends to frown on things that work
perfectly fine in theory once we extend them far too far from their
natural contexts  Like asking 30 million people to go without food
for a winter for example. Works fine in theory - they can just eat
US Govt. bonds or futures contracts for wheat. Sorry, but I'm just
the messenger here.Real quantities of real things govern reality.

2) Extending what 'works' in the private sector to argumentation
for the public sector cannot be selective in its application if it is to
be valid as a general principle. And likewise, nor can it be
unidirectional if it is to remotely resemble an equivalence relation.

3) Even in China there still are only 24 hours in a worker's day,
regardless of how low his wages are. I.e. there are 'real' systemic
limits on the production side. So the other components are also
necessarlity subject to 'real' constraints if there is to be a functional
relationship at all between production, finance and consumption.

4) Deflation is cyclic rather than  terminal, unless one makes it so
by betting the recovey itself that it can be prevented in the first
place. And if that bet is taken and lost, it won't be true that the
devastation is due to 'deflation'. But rather to the recklessness
of the utopian free-lunch policies that were applied.

All IMHO.

Hugh