you lay out a perfect recipe for runaway inflation while pretending that “wages” for FJG program are earned income when in fact they are transfer payments.
You are contradicting yourself and AGAIN misunderstanding government spending. Even if it WERE true, how could ‘transfer payments’ cause inflation when no new dollars are introduced into the private sector? The only answer here would be that the velocity of money would increase because low earners spend the highest % of income so those dollars would be spent back into the economy rather than sitting in some investment account, which is a GOOD thing and not only increases GDP but does so due to the increased buying power of low earners.
You also attempt to change the subject in your first paragraph by switching focus to the federal deficit as opposed to your earlier answers which centered on the Federal Reserve, bonds and tax revenue.
There is no change of subject here because the Fed works IN CONJUNCTION with the Treasury to fund government spending. This is not some abstract theory. This is what ACTUALLY HAPPENS in the REAL WORLD.
As far as your contention that single payer would save money, that other countries have done it, etc. Yes, other countries have done it. Most of them are tiny compared to ours, they don’t have a federal and state system of government, and almost every one of them has shown such serious problems in delivering services that people often die waiting for treatment.
The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that both single-payer systems and nationalized healthcare like the NHS provide BETTER health outcomes at a LOWER cost. You can find a million different studies on this. Or just look at the WHO rankings. The US stands alone in the developed world as having both a primarily privatized healthcare/insurance industry AND paying the most per capita, having the largest % uninsured (by far), and delivering the worst health outcomes. In fact, Rand Paul just went to a private care provider in CANADA so yes, there is still a market for ‘premium’ healthcare for the rich.
You still insist on sidestepping my main inquiry: how will these programs be paid for
No. You are, willfully or not, persistently MISUNDERSTANDING how deficit spending works. You are thinking of government spending as ‘transfers’ between taxpayers/bond purchasers to those receiving payments from the government. When the government deficit spends, the Fed ultimately comes to hold the Treasury’s LIABILITY (and Fed’s ASSET) and the payee comes to hold a demand deposit which is a private bank’s LIABILITY and a private individual’s ASSET. The private bank comes to hold an equivalent increase in reserves which are a private bank’s ASSET and the Fed’s LIABILITY. So what you have at the end of this is an increase of the net financial wealth of the private sector which is precisely equal to the liability the Treasury created when it issued the bond. This process can never fail because the Fed underwrites bond auctions in the primary market. Who is the payee’s demand deposit a transfer from? God? No. It is, like all EXOGENOUS money, created by a liability of the Federal government.
The point of all this is that the risk of a Federal deficit is never DEFAULT but INFLATION as I have stated repeatedly. Which is why we must undertake my proposed programs in a measured way with an EYE FOR INFLATION. Inflation is not so easy to cause, and the Fed has consistently come in UNDER its target despite QE. Japan’s deficit to GDP ratio is greater than ours and even with the central bank maintaining 0% (and even negative) interest rates, they have been unable to generate inflation, hovering around 1–1.3% in 2018.