If a country has little money, why don't they just print more money and use it?

If a country has little money, why don't they just print more money and use it?

Other urls found in this thread:

khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/macroeconomics/monetary-system-topic/interest-price-of-money-tutorial/v/money-supply-and-demand-impacting-interest-rates
golak.tripod.com/intrst.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARGET2#Relation_to_European_debt_crisis
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_Net_Financial_Assets
youtu.be/iFDe5kUUyT0
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Good idea...

What is exchange rates

Just make the money secretly without any other country knowing.

>replying to australian posters

how new are you?

Which is why central banks document that shit.

>What is inflation

So don't let the central bank document it.

But countries don;t print the money. Central banks owned by the Rothschild's print the money.

A thread died for this

Topkek

>If a country has little money, why don't they just print more money and use it?
Keynesianism in a nutshell.

Why not just like...give everyone a million dollars?

HYPER KEYNESIAN HERO

Yea seriously
Inflation only happens cause others know about it

But what if you just do it secretly? Couple of billions at a time, nobody will know about it
As far as you know, it is already happening

That would be like giving negative interest rate loans to strategic industry, so that they can operate below profit margins. :D

Inflation.

There would be no inflation so long as the economy is shitty enough for cash to have limited velocity

We already.

China wants their currency devalued to keep exports high.

America wants their currency devalued to "reduce" their debt.

Now if one would be able to bypass the central banks and keep it secret, how do you get it out into the market without anyone noticing?
Can't just increase wages or give grants because this money will get on the books you'll need to show where it comes from.

WHY HAS NO ONE THOUGHT OF THIS BEFORE

Question makes no sense

what do you mean? inflation would happen unless velocity is zero

There is actually nothing wrong with this. The faggots on this board that don't understand MMT keep thinking inflation is a product of money supply when we have plenty of evidence showing its employment.

>classical economics failing to give up its antiquated theories of inflation in spite of evidence and facts

Limited velocity would have to be combined with metered handouts. Not everyone is given free cash
(Only select businesses or critical demographics)

Great idea OP!

That's a surprisingly good question, because what most people think is the right answer is usually wrong.

Most people believe the government printing money causes hyperinflation. But in reality just printing more money and using it is not sufficient to cause hyperinflation; it merely causes competitive devaluation. Hyperinflation (aka currency collapse) only occurs when something else prevents competitive devaluation.

Fixed exchange rates prevent competitive devaluation, and were a factor in all the recent currency collapses. Historically most countries had fixed exchange rates (which is how the "printing money causes hyperinflation" meme got established). When currencies were floated, people failed to realise it was no longer true.

Printing money and then immediately selling it in an attempt to service foreign currency debts can cause hyperinflation, particularly if you don't already export very much. Being blockaded can cause hyperinflation (as it did to the Confederacy in the American Civil War). Lack of an effective taxation system has historically also caused hyperinflation (including in the American Civil War) but that's of little relevance today.

While in most countries there's zero risk of hyperinflation if more money is printed, normal inflation is still strongly related to the amount of money in the economy. It's not directly proportional (as it also depends on net savings and economic activity) but generally the more money that's printed, the higher the interest rates need to be for the same inflationary outcome (whether or not it's known that the government's printing money).

Right now in most countries, interest rates are so low that printing more money would be a sensible course of action. But in more normal circumstances, the inflationary effect means it's not such a good thing.

lol now you're entering real red pill economic territory OP

watch the Money Master's documentary

learn about Russia expelling Soros
learn about the Guernsey system
Learn about Lincoln's greenbacks
Learn about JFK's silver backed currency
learn about interest-free money

Because this is essentially equivalent to trying to force producers to give consumers free shit, except it doesn't work because they simply raise the prices.

But some inflation will be needed so as to incentivize velocity. It would be a delicate balance.

>arbitrarily manipulating the money supply is red pill economic territory
Maybe if you're the Rothschilds. Otherwise it's the bluest pill you can swallow.

That's called fake money printing and yeah it happens you turbonigger

No, it's better to put into bank reserves, where money serves no purpose because reserves only reflect money exchange between banks.
>Helicopter money NOW

...

>People ITT not knowing this is exactly what happens
Governments do literally print money whenever they feel like it, they say it is to inflate the currency in order to match a growing economy.
In reality they are the ones to spend/loan that money on whatever they desire and the people pay the interest.

khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/macroeconomics/monetary-system-topic/interest-price-of-money-tutorial/v/money-supply-and-demand-impacting-interest-rates

golak.tripod.com/intrst.htm

And they said social "science" is useless. STEM should seriously claim economics.

...

Not until economics stops being a series of religious sects (Neoclassical, Keynesian, Marxist, Austrian) with articles of faith according to their worldview.

Wake me up when economics have a role for energy that respects Thermodynamics and has a prediction power similar to the Lorenz equation for weather.

Never took the post seriously the moment I saw the flag

/thread

That's called counterfeiting.

Never took your country seriously the moment I saw the flag.

came here for this; was not let down

>Why not just like...give everyone a million dollars?

let's don't exaggerate, a minimum wage of €50 an hour would do it for a kick off

satisfying.

it is not possible to rationalize the irrational. The Austrian school at least tries argue as rationally as possible.

>If a country has little money, why don't they just print more money and use it?

because they arent allowed their own currency since we forced them to join our montary (((union))) where we control the printing presses :^)

God fucking damn, Australia is at it again.

>he's not bogdanpilled

except we don't control their printing

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARGET2#Relation_to_European_debt_crisis

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_Net_Financial_Assets

Daaaaaaaaaaamn Australia

Back at it again with the shitpooooooost

>People still fall for this old bait.

Sad desu

OP here.

Just saying, this was never serious. I'm surprised you people debated shit.

gg to you all though, you made me laugh.

>thread is not filled with faggots

Hyperinflation. That's what Germany did in order to pay off their reparations after WW1. People had to collect their wages multiple times a day in wheelbarrows because the currency was worthless. A loaf of bread would cost hundreds of thousands as opposed to 1 mark a few years before. Not a good idea.

Fuck I'm sick of posting this for you retards

youtu.be/iFDe5kUUyT0

We already do...
Scratch that, we license out Jews to print the money, loan it back the government (at interest) and then use it.

as if the Allies had accepted worthless paper currency as reparations