Breaking Hate

First, the Dem. Left GND has a number of non-environmental components to it.

1. 'Free' (ie government subsidised) tertiary education, which is not related to the filthy fossil versus clean environment issue.
2. ditto for universal single payer healthcare (though a Green environment would no doubt reduce community health costs).

Massive wealth redistribution?

Here's a puzzle to consider: (given existing tertiary education infrastructure):

Public education is the transfer of public domain knowledge from teacher to students (within these existing institutions).
The resources 'consumed' in that process are time and effort required from the participants. These resources 'consumed' can have no consequences for inflation, since no extra demand on scarce real resources is involved.

So what is the difference between funding this process by

(a) taxation, which makes the private sector poorer, or

(b) creation of the necessary funds by the central bank, in a process similar to QE which will make the community richer.

(In the GFC, the government, via the central bank, was forced to take the unorthodox step involving QE measured in the $trillions, to stabilize the collapsing private banking system, a GFC brought on by inadequate and failing neoliberal economic orthodoxy).

That's why you should look at MMT, which exposes the inadequacies of the orthodox neoliberal economic school with consequences including under-utilisation of available resources in the community, including underemployed labour.

The orthodox "experts" are the frauds; Summers admitted he had not studied the intricacies of sectoral and accounting balances, so he was not able to comment on the MMT proposition that government deficits represent private sector savings (allowing for external deficits); and Krugman always reveals he has not grasped the most basic principles of MMT whenever he criticises it.

Admittedly Bernie wants a tax on financial transactions: and Warren wants a tax on personal wealth over $50 million (!); I concede neither are facing up to the extraordinary effects of self-interest (manifested mostly on the Right, who are already financially comfortable) on behaviour and political/economic choices (eg "let them eat cake").
But that's because they don't understand MMT either. Bernie can be forgiven - IIRC he is not an economist; and Warren - well it takes a lot to be prepared to unlearn all the fantasy you were taught at Doctorate level, for many years.

[For an explanation of the psychology of the self-interest manifested on the Right in Libertarianism and classical Liberalism - conscious and unconscious - see my post #147].

 

Nothing really. They're both acts of aggression against the person and property of one's fellow man.

 

Then so should commie groups, obviously.

 

White supremacy is a problem. That said, ANY race that pushes for supremacy should be held to those same level of scrutiny.

 

Fine.

 

So is breathing.

 

Ah.... Longshot, still bravely fighting for the 'Rights of Man' I see….

Kode has answered your proposition very succinctly in his post #156 above.

For a more detailed examination of 'Rights', and issues relating to competition versus co-operation, etc, in a world in which there is more than one individual, see my post #147.

 

Now that you, as a Libertarian, have read and understood my post #147 [………(cough)….] - are you ready to address the puzzle I presented re taxation, employment of real (scarce) resources, and the effect on inflation; and hence MMT's positing a role for government in wealth creation?

 

How so?

 

MMT doesn't create wealth. It creates dollars.

 

Education is the sine qua non of wealth creation, does not draw on scarce resources (after the required infrastructure is established) and hence is as free as the air we breathe....which brings us to Kode's remark:
I'm breathing the air - and possibly contaminating - the air that you are breathing.
In other words, the mere existence of another individual can involve "an act of aggression against the person and property of one's fellow man".

Just to remind you:

Libertarianism: the delusion that individual liberty (of the instinctively self-interested individual) which is not counterbalanced by just law* is compatible with community well-being.

* just law is a work in progress, beginning over 3 millennia ago with Hammurabi's Law ("an eye for an eye") - representing the human desire to bring "justice" to a predatory world driven by instinct. The UN UDHR is quite an advance, the only problem being that communities are still ruled more by instinct than reason, so that ideas expressed in that fine document must remain a goal rather than a reality for some time yet.

 

So am I to understand that your moral philosophy requires all people to stop breathing?

 

It's self-evident.

 

So am I to understand that your moral philosophy requires all people to stop breathing?

 

When getting down to brass tacks, that summarizes socialism perfectly.

 

...as such false and unsupportable accusations summarize right wing methodology.

 

So am I to understand that your moral philosophy requires all people to stop breathing?

 

There is a TED Talk by a guy named Theo EJ Wilson that everyone should listen to. He explains what the current alt right movement really is. And how the media is the greatest recruiter there is to the movement.

 

I have no idea, I am not on the right. I'm just the guy in the restaurant in early- mid twentieth century watching the Commies and the Nazis fighting each other, knowing whoever wins that everyone else loses.

The best case and most unlikely scenario is that both sides will either fade out of fashion or just kill each other off. AFAIC, the left and right have far more in common with each other than I'll ever have with either of them.

 

Riiiiiiight. I've seen your posts for a long time. If you're so "in the middle" and don't take sides, then why did you post such a ridiculous, anti-factual attack on the concept of socialism in post 165?

 

Granted, it was hyperbole but that doesn't change the fact that throughout history attempts at socialism was failures.

I know, the Richard Wolff clan of socialism ( and correct me if I am wrong here, but what you appear to support) is attempting to redefine socialism and how it may be achieved but it fails. It has the same basic flaw as before: the requirements of government.

You see, that is exactly why you and righties like @Mac-7 have far more in common with each other than I will ever have with either of you. Both of you think government will work, just as long as it is *your kind* of government. But I have news for you, it is all doomed to the same failure. This version of crony capitalism is no better or worse than your socialist government. Government is government. There is no "of, by and for the people". That's utopian nonsense.

 

No. You have drawn the wrong conclusions, consequent to the delusionary nature of your own moral philosophy.

Fact: we are many individuals. each driven by instinct as well as conscious awareness; somewhere in that unholy alliance of self-interestedness and awareness of the other, resides (the ability to) reason - though note my first comment - you have drawn the wrong conclusions about how individuals relate and affect one-another consequent on the delusionary nature of your own moral philosophy, eg, which includes raising the concept of 'voluntary agreement' to the status of natural and 'normal' rather than (as in reality) exceptional, ie exceptional because such voluntary agreement is 'learned' and resides in the conscious cortex brain, but not the instinctive reptilian/mammalian brain.

Back to MMT - a quick lesson for you (and my education 'puzzle' demonstrates a key axiom of MMT, namely):

Nations are restricted only by real resource constraints (which vary according to the level of technological development); but modern sovereign governments with sole (floating) currency issuing powers do not face intrinsically financial restraints.

[Proof: the US and Japanese governments can continue with their net debt growing forever (as it has in the past); note the key difference with private sector households and institutions (banks) which can indeed go broke, and must repay their debts by the due date; there is no due date for government debt)].

 

You believe: "Anarchy is not a solution, not a system, not a club, not a church, not even an ideology. It is the natural order of human life: Voluntary, consensual relationships among humans..."

I have debunked this in my above post #172; and in the 2nd half of #162 which I repeat here for your benefit:

<<Libertarianism: the delusion that individual liberty (of the instinctively self-interested individual) which is not counterbalanced by just law* is compatible with community well-being.

* just law is a work in progress, beginning over 3 millennia ago with Hammurabi's Law ("an eye for an eye") - representing the human desire to bring "justice" to a predatory world driven by instinct. The UN UDHR is quite an advance, the only problem being that communities are still ruled more by instinct than reason, so that ideas expressed in that fine document must remain a goal rather than a reality for some time yet. >>

I also note this tendency of the Right (while acknowledging your claim not to be on the Right: indeed I would place you in a fantasy world of "Anarchy", not on the Left-Right spectrum); namely, the tendency to "black and white" or "concrete" thinking.

[In Longshot's case, he was unable to grasp the meaning of a breathing metaphor, and hence deflected it with a ridiculous conclusion.
In your case, you are unable to conceive of socialism as a developing structure....quite apart from your rejection of the very concept of government itself (all explained in my post #172)].

This tendency explained:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(psychology)

<<Compartmentalization is a subconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person's having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves.>>

 

I’m not sure what you are accusing me of

Or what the the midfle of the road position is that you represent

But I do know thar socialism as advocated by the leftists on this forum is bad for America and I dont want any part of that

 

To be able to answer your first two questions, you need to understand where TedintheShed is coming from, ie his view of 'reality'; Hint: it's based on a philosophical fantasy (Anarchy) expressed as 'the natural order of human life: Voluntary, consensual relationships among humans" .
Conclusion: social organisation via government is inimical to human well-being.

He's not in the middle of the political spectrum at all; the political spectrum assumes government in some form at least.

As to your final assertion: you are assuming that eg Bernie Sanders' policy of a Jobs Guarantee - at first sight obviously a very beneficial policy - is bad for America, because you think funding required for such a policy will harm your own financial well-being.
Fair enough, but I don't believe the JG proposal will harm your own financial well-being; on the contrary, your own circumstances may be improved, as entrenched poverty (currently c.10%) is eliminated.

But it's up to you whether you choose to examine (or not) the emerging macroeconomic theory of MMT, which is gaining support and which may eventually displace the current faulty Neoliberal economic orthodoxy - hopefully before the next recession hits us....

On second thoughts: since the likes of Summers and Krugman still can't critique MMT correctly, (because they would have to 'unlearn' many years of classical economic theory at Doctorate level),.....it's probably better if we lesser mortals wait and see how the debate moves forward in academia, in the coming years.