• kibiz0r@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    6 days ago

    No one.

    Remember, the government is the issuer of the currency. They don’t need to collect dollars in order to spend them.

    Imagine a referee removing a point from a participant.

    The point doesn’t go anywhere, waiting to be reused, it just gets deleted. The next point to get added isn’t the “same point” in any sense, even though the point total is the same and maybe even some physical point token got reused.

    Conceptually, sovereign currency is always on a one-way trip from being spent into existence to being taxed into annihilation.

    • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      This is an inaccurate metaphor because the referee doesn’t normally earn points but governments absolutely spend money.

      The money is collected by the government and funds budgets.

    • FelixCress@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      5 days ago

      Remember, the government is the issuer of the currency. They don’t need to collect dollars in order to spend them.

      Yup, that worked a treat in Zimbabwe.

      • kibiz0r@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        “They don’t need to collect dollars in order to spend them” does not mean “They ought to spend dollars and not collect them”.

        I’m only describing that collecting X amount from tariffs does not imply that spending must necessarily increase by X somewhere due to some kind of conservation of dollars that the OP seemed to assume.