• Jeena@piefed.jeena.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’m just paraphrasing the article you linked:

      How long can the party last? Mr Putin’s attempts to blunt interest-rate rises will lead inflation to rise higher, and last longer, than it would have otherwise. At some point, people may get angry about the rising cost of living. He also cannot run budget deficits for ever. At current rates, Russia’s financial reserves will be exhausted in five years or so; meanwhile, the government faces high borrowing costs. But for now, Mr Putin has a war to win. And so the party goes on.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Parroting things without actually thinking about them doesn’t generally produce any interesting insights. As long as a country’s debt is denominated in its own currency and it has control over issuing that currency, it can create more of it to cover any outstanding obligations. This means there’s no risk of default because the government can simply print money to pay off its debts. That’s how US is able to have national debt of $34.4 trillion right now. If The Economist thinks that Russia’s financial reserves will be exhausted in five years or so, then they have some explaining to do regarding the US.

        • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          This means there’s no risk of default because the government can simply print money to pay off its debts. That’s how US is able to have national debt of $34.4 trillion right now. If The Economist thinks that Russia’s financial reserves will be exhausted in five years or so, then they have some explaining to do regarding the US.

          The US is able to have a national debt of 34.4 trillion because people are still willing to lend them money. They aren’t just printing money, they are selling securities, which is similar to taking out a loan.

          Printing more money in your own currency without backing it with some sort of security is just going to devalue your buying power and increase inflation. The Russian government is currently utilizing their reserves to sustain their spending, but if they run through those reserves they’re going to have to stop spending, or start selling securities. Either way, deficit spending cannot be solved via printing press.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            The US is able to have a national debt of 34.4 trillion because people are still willing to lend them money. They aren’t just printing money, they are selling securities, which is similar to taking out a loan.

            They’re very much printing money, meanwhile the demand for US bonds globally is in fact dropping.

            Printing more money in your own currency without backing it with some sort of security is just going to devalue your buying power and increase inflation. The Russian government is currently utilizing their reserves to sustain their spending, but if they run through those reserves they’re going to have to stop spending, or start selling securities.

            There’s absolutely nothing preventing Russia from backing its currency with securities as well. In fact, Russia is in a much better position to do so because they’ve been stockpiling gold.

            Either way, deficit spending cannot be solved via printing press.

            I mean the fact that it can is literally the premise behind MMT. That aside however, the very nature of currency is that it’s just a social contract. What actually matters is whether the country is able to allocate its productive forces effectively. As long as a country can continue to produce the things people need then the economy will be fine.

            • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              They’re very much printing money, meanwhile the demand for US bonds globally is in fact dropping.

              Lol, I mean money is being printed in the literal sense. But, it’s still backed by securities.

              As far as bond demand goes, it tends to dip and surge in popularity based on its yield.

              There’s absolutely nothing preventing Russia from backing its currency with securities as well. In fact, Russia is in a much better position to do so because they’ve been stockpiling gold.

              Securities are only valuable if the buyer believes they will be paid out once they have matured. Russia could start borrowing and utilizing securities, but they don’t exactly have a wide market to borrow from. Basically they’d have to borrow from China or maybe India, and those two likely wouldn’t be interested in gold reserves.

              Gold isn’t a currency or even like a currency, it’s value declines the more it moves. It’s not exactly the best thing to back securities with, it’s more geared for purchasing when you have currency instabilities. More than likely they would have to back their securities with interest in oil/natural gass. However, that wouldn’t really help their problems too much, as that’s how they find their National Wealth Fund.

              mean the fact that it can is literally the premise behind MMT.

              Borrowing money is not the same as “printing money”.

              very nature of currency is that it’s just a social contract. What actually matters is whether the country is able to allocate its productive forces effectively.

              Yes, currency is a social contract, one that’s based on trust. How that currency performs and what it represents can influence that trust. Currency is not completely insulated from material realities, and the gap between the stated worth of the currency and the material realities of the country that determine that worth can determine how people outside the country will value it.

              What actually matters is whether the country is able to allocate its productive forces effectively. As long as a country can continue to produce the things people need then the economy will be fine.

              I mean… That’s a neat theory, but it kinda is easily disputed by nearly all economic collapses of the 19th century and onwards. If this is true, then did the Soviet Union’s economy explode simply due to an inability to allocate productive forces accordingly?

              Has there been an economic collapse outside of a major war that was caused simply by a country losing its production capacity?