Greenspan: "There is nothing to prevent the government from creating as much money as it wants."

What people said

mempko · 2026-06 · Reference

Here is an old clip of Alan Greenspan explaining to Paul Ryan why the social security system can't go bankrupt. [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗

mempko · 2025-01 · Reference

Modern monetary systems function through two main channels: government spending and bank lending. Every dollar in circulation originates from one of these sources - either government fiscal operations (deficit spending) or bank credit creation through loans. This means all money is fundamentally based on debt, though "debt" has very different implications for a currency-issuing government versus private borrowers. Government debt operates fundamentally differently from household debt since the government controls its own currency. As former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan noted to Congress, the U.S. can always meet any obligation denominated in dollars since it can create them. The real constraints aren't financial but economic - inflation risk and the efficient allocation of real resources. [VIDEO] The key question then becomes one of political priorities and public understanding. If public opposition to beneficial government spending stems from misunderstanding how modern monetary systems work, then better education about these mechanisms could help advance important policy goals. The focus should be on managing real economic constraints rather than imaginary financial ones.

Read the original HN comment ↗

omegaworks · 2021-12 · Reference

>I've paid Social Security and Medicare taxes for 25 years, since my first paycheck, and it's not likely I'll ever receive anything from these programs based on current projections. This is a purely political decision. When Paul Ryan made this assertion in Congress to justify privatizing the system Alan Greenspan shot him down[1]. The government chooses how many dollars to allocate to Social Security and Medicare. Whether those dollars come from taxes elsewhere is almost entirely irrelevant. The only factor is whether seniors will get enough from the program to buy what they need to live. This has as much to do with the prices of goods as it does with the size of the benefit itself. We will need to ensure we have the production we need to meet the demand by investing in sustainable, productivity amplifying technologies. The reality is with population aging or stagnating we will need one worker to be able to produce what two or more was able to to keep prices stable. I think the pressure to do this is already being felt by workers here in the US. It's one of the main reasons why there is so much apathy from the ruling classes when it comes to ensuring workers can earn a living wage from one job. The people in charge would rather we keep the conditions such that one worker must work three jobs to scrape by than make the costly investments to increase productivity. 1. [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗