First of all, I am an American citizen. I don’t know where you got Australia from. So yes, this is my fight.
And what is “private money?” Private money might be seen as Bitcoin or other digital currency, but that’s not germane to this discussion. Further, your paper on the Bank of England is irrelevant to the USA. The Fed regulates the money supply by fiat based on their perception of the economy’s needs. End of subject. Period. Full stop.
The Bank of England and Federal Reserve are both central banks and operate in very similar (almost exactly the same) ways. Both have accounts with the government and private banks. Bitcoin is not money, it’s a peculiar type of commodity. The Fed regulates the money supply by shifting around reserves and securities in order to hit its overnight interest rate.
Private money is money that is created endogenously to the private sector when banks make loans, as described in the paper. This money creation is not reserve constrained, as was commonly assumed until relatively recently. The Federal reserve has some control over the monetary base, this is true. But it has little control over money creation in the private economy. It sets the overnight interest rate through secondary market operations and hopes for the best.
There are no bonds sold to finance Medicare. It is set up to be funded by those who participate in it, through FICA payments and general tax revenue. And what the hell is the TGA?? Here’s another news flash for you: “Thinking of particular tax payments as ‘for’ something makes no sense” makes no sense when one considers the fact that Medicare is a line item on every withholding statement for salaried employees.
The TGA is the Treasury General Account, as I have said multiple times. The TGA is the Treasury’s account at the Fed. This is the account to which tax revenues/bond proceeds are credited, and from which expenditures are debited. Once you understand this, you understand that particular taxes do not ‘fund’ particular expenditures. FICA does not fund Medicare anymore than income taxes fund it. All taxes and bond proceeds flow through the TGA and the Treasury/Fed work together to try and keep a relatively stable balance (about 5 billion if I remember correctly).
You cannot show me any evidence to support your contention that a government program will save money. Government has no incentive to save money, they just spend and raise taxes.
Go ahead and look the studies up yourself. The Koch-funded Mercatus institute study projects 57.6T in total healthcare expenditures under Medicare for All versus 59.4T under the current system. This is a cost savings of around 2T. Other studies have found larger savings. Medicare for All is not Obamacare. As you know, Obamacare was/is effectively a handout to the insurance industries and was strongly lobbied for by them.
You offer cirular firing squad logic here. A deficit must be made up with an increase in revenue. For the government that means an increase in tax revenue, or we borrow it, a loan which must be serviced and repaid. That is how the federal deficit is reconciled.
This is, again, wrong. The deficit is federal expenses in excess of tax revenues collected. Under current law, the deficit is financed through sale of securities. The deficit is not made up with an increase in ‘revenue’, it’s made up through cash flow by the issuance of liabilities. This is, of course, a policy choice. The government could instead just decide to allow the Fed to overdraft the TGA and therefore deficit spend interest-free. Maybe there are good reasons to issue interest-paying debt, such as providing stable fixed income to citizens. But this is a policy choice, not a necessity.
I could continue but there is no point. I’ve read enough of your writing to know that your entire focus is socialism. Get this: We are not a socialist country.
As I said in one of my first posts, all of these proposals leave capitalism well intact. There is no revolution, there is no change in the social relation of workers to capital, there is no worker ownership of the workplace.
Your criticisms are based on a faulty understanding of macroeconomics. If you want to understand what is possible, you must at least get the real-world operations right first. Vague rejoinders about ‘individual liberty’ are not sufficient. Government action may either expand or restrict liberty. What is scope of ‘individual liberty’ afforded to the worker who dies of curable illness because she was priced out of the healthcare market? Very narrow indeed.