I think he meant savings as cash saving/bank deposits. Since all cash savings/bank deposits are the debt of someone else, for the entire private sector to increase its cash holding/bank deposits the government has to increase its debt.
Either definition could be used, as long as you keep track of what definition you’re using and the consequences that follow.
There’s a point of view called “Modern Monetary Theory” (MMT) which defines savings to exclude investments, resulting in Savings = 0 instead of the conventional Savings = Investment, but adherents of MMT tend to misapply this, arguing that government debt is needed for, e.g. people to be able to save for retirement, which is false when you take into account investment.
Yes, thanks, and that I think is the difference I was vaguely aiming toward. I was neglecting investment and real assets, and don’t quite know how they fit in (since you can’t spend them without selling them), so I did phrase my question in terms of cash and bank deposits.
Like—does our current monetary system allow for any possible way for both people and the government to not, on average, be in debt for more money than they have in cash and bank savings?
Who do you mean with people? If I have 1000$ bank saving that means that I loaned the bank 1000$ and the bank owns me those 1000$. Do you see banks and not being people? Do you see businesses as being people?
I think he meant savings as cash saving/bank deposits. Since all cash savings/bank deposits are the debt of someone else, for the entire private sector to increase its cash holding/bank deposits the government has to increase its debt.
Either definition could be used, as long as you keep track of what definition you’re using and the consequences that follow.
There’s a point of view called “Modern Monetary Theory” (MMT) which defines savings to exclude investments, resulting in Savings = 0 instead of the conventional Savings = Investment, but adherents of MMT tend to misapply this, arguing that government debt is needed for, e.g. people to be able to save for retirement, which is false when you take into account investment.
Yes, thanks, and that I think is the difference I was vaguely aiming toward. I was neglecting investment and real assets, and don’t quite know how they fit in (since you can’t spend them without selling them), so I did phrase my question in terms of cash and bank deposits.
Like—does our current monetary system allow for any possible way for both people and the government to not, on average, be in debt for more money than they have in cash and bank savings?
Who do you mean with people? If I have 1000$ bank saving that means that I loaned the bank 1000$ and the bank owns me those 1000$. Do you see banks and not being people? Do you see businesses as being people?