Breaking Hate

Some of them do, usually the older ones that fully explore the concept. Newer neo-chartalist, usually marked by the "you don't understand MMT" comments, are usually naive about the violence involved.

 

But they specifically say that their MMT currency has value because the government requires people to pay their taxes with it. How does that not rely upon violence?

 

Absolutely. It does require violence. I was just speaking more to what props up the fiat.

 

Right. The state.

 

Specifically the military, in the case of the U.S.

 

Now that you have had time to acquaint yourself with the basics of MMT (....hope springs eternal....)

But first, I see you are up to your old tricks of rewording a statement to suit your purposes (ideological blindness at best...)

"government requires people to pay their taxes with (fiat currency)"

No, people want the government's currency, so they (the people) can pay for the services they want government to provide.

Cor blimey,....anyway, it was fun to see you two old dears talking about the delusional concept of Anarchy:

"the natural order of human life: Voluntary, consensual relationships among humans" …..and ending up with the US military....!

 

But the government does actually require people to pay their taxes with fiat currency. You are aware of this, right?

 

Yes, but the point is: there's no "state violence" involved in paying taxes. Individuals certainly consider their own circumstances in paying tax, and *voluntarily* vote accordingly, for the policies on offer.
Though none of us love paying tax, we all recognise the mutual benefits in paying tax. That's why we hear people saying "I think we should be paying more tax" (for specific public services).

The irony is: an MMT-enlightened government does not need to tax in order to spend (as you should know by now....). Rather taxation is merely a tool which, inter alia, can be used to prevent sectoral overheating and inflation.

But this will all go over your head because you think 'value' only resides in prices determined in a competitive market place, a model totally inadequate to satisfy the universal desires for above poverty wages, education, health/caring services and public infrastructure.

 

Great to know. I will discontinue paying taxes forthwith.

People value things based upon their preferences.

 

If you do that, it won't be the 'state' that comes after you, it will be your neighbours.....you forget you live in a community.

Their own preferences? No such thing as community?
Thatcher of course, like all Conservatives, was wrong.

Here is the explanation:

<<<"Classical liberalism is based on a misconception of the natural world, and is no doubt a reaction to the "divine Right of kings" from which people of the 'enlightenment' were seeking to escape.

But …..."imprescriptible natural rights" do not exist in nature, rather they are inventions of the human 'cortex' brain, seat of self-awareness, reason and the concept of 'justice'. Nature is a (pre and post 'cortex') instinctive system of survival of individuals in a predatory competition for scarce resources. IOW, "Rights" do not exist outside of human conception.>>>"

So the Marxist principle, based in simple justice ie just and sufficient access to the world's resources (not the same as equality of outcome) - a concept conceived in the self-aware human cortex - in opposition to the 'unjust' (in cortex-aware terms only) predatory competition in the natural world, ie this Marxist principle is correct for a well-ordered, efficient, creative human civilisation.

In fact this is the principle which will save us, if indeed a transition from filthy fossil is urgently required, because unregulated self-interested profit-seeking capitalism won't get us there fast enough.

 

It's great to know that there is no initiation of violence. Either by the state or whoever.

So you are in favor of the truncheon and machine gun to cow your neighbor into submission?

 

A sense of justice (arising in the cortex brain), and a recognition of the need for rule of law, mean that your neighbours don't actually have to take up arms against your instinctively self-interested behaviour.
Your neighbours delegate that function to the state. Hint: your Anarchist delusion does not hold sway anywhere, because it's impossible to achieve.(I have explained why in my previous post).

 

So now you're saying there is an initiation of violence in paying taxes? You can't seem to keep your story straight.

 

No, I'm saying rule of law, universally (at least at the national level, thus far) recognised as the necessary system of social organisation, determines settlement of disputes between instinctively self-interested individuals. Your Anarchist position is a denial of any individual responsibility to the general welfare.

 

Ah, got it. You want to violate the person and property of your fellow man.

Ew. Just ew. You kind of people give me the willies. I would never let you near my granddaughters.

 

I pity your grand-daughters, but hopefully your influence will be long gone by the time they have to make responsible decisions for the sustainable development of our complex social world.

Enough of this Anarchist delusion.

Here's something to put (what's left of) your brain to:

https://leftfootforward.org/2018/10...ically-change-how-we-think-about-the-economy/

<<<Last Friday saw the launch of a project which could change how we think about the monetary system.

The Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies (GIMMS) aims to spread the insights offered by an alternative way of thinking about money.

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is a lens through which to view the monetary system in countries with sovereign currencies, like the UK. MMT states that monetarily sovereign governments create all money through spending, and governments can purchase anything available for sale denominated in its currency.

A different perspective
MMT separates taxing and spending. In fact, it reverses their order – central governments have to spend in order for the non-government sector to have the income to pay their taxes. Spending creates pounds, whilst taxing removes them. ‘Taxpayers money’ per se, does not pay for services. MMT’s insights are descriptive, but most people who get involved with MMT are economically progressive.>>> etc (read on)

I realise this (in your case) is like asking an ISIS theologian to read the New Testament… but never say never.....

 

In part, yes.

But as a former 23 year old female, I would submit that any interaction driven by atavism is inappropriate. Unless you're 23 and a hottie yourself, and know that she's single and straight, don't do it. Ever. It will ALWAYS be unwelcome, no matter how 'friendly' she seems. She can't tell you to **** off because she's at work.

One of the most liberating lessons I learned as a young woman was to ditch the childhood lessons on 'politeness'. For far too long, I - like most women - felt obliged to respond to random older males making verbal contact clearly inappropriate to the situation. Even once I stopped responding to their pretext questions or comments, I still found myself meeting their demand for eye contact. Eventually I fought down that automatic response also, and it was such a relief. I can't hear or see them at all now. I've even made sure my daughter is not compelled by social pressure to 'tolerate' the sleazy attentions of creepy old men when she's out and about. She knows that no innocent man will deliberately seek out young females with whom to interact, so it's safe to assume that 90% of such approaches should be regarded with suspicion and blanked with prejudice. There will be some mistakes of course - a small number will be innocent - but the hurt feelings of a few grown men is a tiny price to pay for her safety and comfort.

 

The good news is that the freedom movement is on the rise. Meanwhile the archaic authoritarian state process, which was first conjured in the minds of the earliest cave dwellers when one unthinking being hit another with a club and realized that they could dominate their fellow man with a monopoly of force, is one the decline.

Democracy, communism, racism...call it what you will. Statism is still weilding the monopoly of force to coerce with the threat of or enact violence upon their fellow man.

 

The government should print enough money so that everyone gets ten million dollars.

 

"when one unthinking being".....that's the problem!

"The good news is that the freedom movement is on the rise".

Yes, that is good news, though it's a painful process of consciousness raising (eg do people still join the KKK these days?)

 

No, a government's role (in our post industrial, global-trade era) is to facilitate the sustainable utilisation of all the nation's resources, in the context of universal above-poverty, participation in the economy; hence the JG (Job Guarantee) of MMT.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/e...economy-washington_n_5afee5eae4b0463cdba15121

Note Kelton's clever and witty remark: " money doesn't grow on rich people".

Now, MMT also recognises that free-market "invisible hand" (profit-seeking, rent-seeking) capitalism, without state intervention, can never achieve just and sufficient access to necessary resources (not the same as equality of outcome).

The good news is: government does not need the money of rich people, in order to achieve that outcome (hence Kelton's remark).

 

That's great. So we do away with taxes then, I suppose.

And the government should also send a check to everyone for one million dollars.

 

Yes, in the context of "just and sufficient access to necessary resources".

Government doesn't need to tax in order to spend, a nation (public + private sectors) only needs to develop its resources in a sustainable manner.

Example:

"Brunei does not currently levy any income tax on individuals and there is no sales tax or value added tax (VAT). - There are no social security taxes in Brunei. However, all citizens must contribute 5% of their salary to a state-managed provident fund".​

Wny? Who needs a million dollars if you can participate in the economy at above-poverty level?

[However, if the economy has the resources and the productive capacity to satisfy the increase in demand, the issue of those checks might be a policy choice....)

"The best things in life are free...." (provided you have access to the basic comforts/needs).

Anyway, it will be interesting to see if Stephanie Kelton becomes a household name in the next year or so.

Meanwhile, a community in which c. 14% (40 million) are living in poverty, and c. half (50%) have trouble accessing $500 in an emergency, is not a stable community. So you might be concerned about all this.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/23/most-americans-dont-have-the-savings-to-cover-a-1000-emergency.html

"Just 40 percent of Americans could pay an unexpected $1,000 expense, such as an emergency room visit or car repair, with their savings, according to a survey from Bankrate".

 

I can't "thank" this enough! That was my exact reaction when I read that, BS!

And it's exactly right that the vast majority "don't care " and those that do, know why and would never ask. They cultivate hate and fear.

So yeah, I highly suspect some creative liberties were taken with the truth in that accounting for dramatic effect...

@Grau : Cool story bro.

 

Now it become clear, especially Bernie Sanders tendency not to understand basic economic principals. It appears his chief economic advisor is none other than Stephanie Kelton.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news...e-government-should-just-print-more-money/amp

If not familiar, she got her Ph.D. in economics from The New School, an institute known for its radically liberal policies. She once notoriously stated that if government bred ponies then everyone should get a free pony, not realizing that if that were the case then ponies would be worthless.