31 sats \ 3 replies \ @siggy47 21 Oct \ on: Minneapolis Fed Bitcoin Paper | Article Review BooksAndArticles
That's why it's good to have you writing these reviews. I totally missed the boat when I read it this morning, because I didn't have any context as to why the paper was written. Am I right that the authors don't really even express an opinion as to whether permanent primary deficits are desirable?
There's one sentence that kinda implies it could be useful to run permanent deficits:
These results suggest that a legal prohibition of bitcoin or a tax on bitcoin are forms of financial repression that may be useful when the ability of the government to use consumption taxes is limited.
But the word "useful" could be interpreted as "useful to achieve the policymaker's objectives", without commenting on the desirability of the policymaker's objectives. That's usually the stance economists take. We tend to not say anything about the desirability of objectives, but say whether something is useful or not in achieving said objectives.