home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69211 talk.politics.theory:5725 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13482
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!cleveland.Freenet.Edu!an030
- From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
- Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
- Subject: Re: National debt is not bad
- Date: 22 Jan 1993 16:07:24 GMT
- Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
- Lines: 29
- Message-ID: <1jp63sINN6r9@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
- References: <C18tFM.AMo@unix.portal.com> <1993Jan21.200324.2210@midway.uchicago.edu>
- Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
- NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu
-
-
- In a previous article, mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) says:
- >:
- >: What's the difference between issuing bonds and borrowing money?
- >:
- >: What do you think treasury bills are?
-
- Economic JIT. I can't wait. Perhaps we can have a
- government TQM program, too.
-
-
- >They're issued whenever the government needs to borrow to cover its
- >defecit spending.
- >
- >Ted, you miss the point, it seems. The government can borrow and save
- >money at the same time. The government can borrow and have a surplus
- >spending level even. The government can also borrow to build roads,
- >run electricity everywhere, trains, a banking system, and the likes,
- >and still have a positive cash flow. The government could do it and
- >cut taxes in half, even. It simply has to spend less than it takes
- >in... :)
- >
- >
- >: --
- >: ted frank | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu
- >: standard disclaimers | void where prohibited
- >: the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
- >
-
-