If the item does sell for that much, money laundering seems like the most likely reason. The article says “selling” but it’s only “selling” in the sense that someone is trying to sell it for that price. There’s all kinds of shit listed for crazy prices.
This article is mostly talking about an economics concept of “r vs g”, which the author describes as follows:
As long as a country’s economic growth rate (g) is higher than the interest rate ® it pays on its national debt, then the cost of servicing that debt will remain stable, allowing the government to roll it over indefinitely without much worry.
I’m not an economist, but this seemed odd to me. I suspected the author might not understand economics and the concept might more complicated than they were making it out to be.
A quick search on “r vs g economics” seems to indicate that this author has no business writing about economics. Here is the first result I clicked on, which near the start of the article states:
One approach to assess the sustainability of federal debt was popularized by Olivier Blanchard, in his speech as outgoing American Economic Association president, in 2019. That paper was written during a period of low interest rates and noted the relationship between the interest rate on government debt ® and the growth rate of the economy (G): R less than G could imply a stable debt trajectory. However, Blanchard, as well as other economists and fiscal policy experts, recognized that the framework only holds true when the deficit excluding interest payments is small, which unfortunately is not the current case in the United States.
That makes a lot more sense to me. The economics concept applies when the deficit is small. The US deficit is not small. Regardless of R vs G, a large deficit means that debt is becoming more of a burden, even if R is less than G. Yes, R getting closer to G or exceeding G increases the burden of US debt, but R vs G isn’t all that matters like the writer of this piece in the Atlantic claims.
…At least as far as I can tell… But it’s late, I’m tired, and I’m not an economist. I’d love to hear what one has to say about this article, even if they tell me I’m totally wrong.
Not the person you replied too, but I think this is still considered money laundering. If a person is selling illegal drugs (or whatever illegal product) and wants to receive the money “cleanly”, this would be a way to do so. Instead of selling the illegal item, they sell (or pretending to sell) a legal item but provide the illegal item. The seller now has clean money. I think this is still called money laundering.