we have been conditioned to understand the government's finances through a lens that we're

most familiar with, that is our own.

And what's wrong with that is that the federal government is nothing like a household.

And the key difference between them and the rest of us is that they get to issue the currency.

The United States government is the issuer of the dollar,

and the rest of us just use it.

So households, private businesses, state and local governments

have to get the dollar before they can spend it.

They have to get money.

The federal government has to spend the dollar before the rest of us can get it.

And so they play by an entirely different set of rules. And I mean, even Bernie Sanders, who you

advise, sort of often lapses into talking about, you know, being given the how do you pay for it

question and coming up with the answer, well, this is the way

that the taxes would cover it.

But what you suggest is that we shouldn't even think of a one-to-one correlation between

taxes and government spending.

Taxes are important, but they serve a very different function.

And these two things should be, basically, we should take them apart

in our minds. And that's very difficult because we always, we think of, well, a sensible

universal healthcare program, you know, here's the taxes that would cover it, and here's why

the budget adds up. But you've got to suggest throwing away the whole framework.

Yeah, you know, you're right. It is not helpful, nor is it good economics. And I don't think it's good

...