konki

joined 2 years ago
[–] konki@lemmy.one 1 points 2 weeks ago

Totally agree. The intial tax liability declared in a currency has the purpose of creating demand for the currency so that people, either directly or indirectly, want to work for the government to get the money they are issuing. This effect is probably most import when the currency is first created, but at the same time also the most important function of tax: It is what goves the money its value.

[–] konki@lemmy.one 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Totally agree. I am definately an MMTer myself. The mailman example is very good, by the way.

[–] konki@lemmy.one 1 points 2 weeks ago

True, but somene has to, and they will create a demand for the currency. If I hear that Joe the baker needs money to pay taxes, and I want to buy bread from him, I know he will accept the government currency as payment for his bread. This in turn makes me demand money to be able to buy the bread.

[–] konki@lemmy.one 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

That is true, but Bitcoin, like all other crypto"currencies", is a Ponzi scheme. Its value is driven purely by speculation, and the hope that it can be passed on to a "greater fool" for profit. This is true for a lot of financial assets, by the way.

[–] konki@lemmy.one 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The government "debt" is not a problem whatsoever. It cannot be a problem. The so called debt is simply the difference between the amount of money created and the amount taxed. If there was no "debt" there couldn't be any saving in an economy. If the government wanted to, it could simply "print" the money to pay off all its debt tomorrow. It souldn't necessarily be a smart thing to do, but there wouldn't be any financial constraints stopping them from doing it.

[–] konki@lemmy.one 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I agree, but that leads to an infinite regress of your parents observering their parents, etc. My argument is really about the start of this chain.

[–] konki@lemmy.one 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
  • that people always act in their own best interest (they fucking don't)

Totally agree

  • that people can actually choose not to buy the product

This is actually pretty well deacrived by what's called the price elasticity of demand in standard neoclassical models. For things like housing one might say that the demand is very inellastic: A change in price does not affect the quatity demanded.

[–] konki@lemmy.one -3 points 3 weeks ago (8 children)

The reason that you and everyone else believe in it is primarily because you need it to pay taxes, so the belief is not arbitrary.

[–] konki@lemmy.one 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

There actually isn't such a thing as a "natural rate of unemployment", so all of those 4% are part of the excess productive capacity.

There will always be some people out of work for various reasons

If those people are unemployed simply because their previous contract expired a bit before their new one started (frictional unemployment), then I agree it is totally unproblematic. If it is because there aren't enough jobs going around (structural unemployment), it isn't.

That money comes from somewhere

All money in monetarily sovereign countries come from government spending: It is spent into existence by the central bank marking up the reserve accounts of the banks of the people and businesses it pays to. The money in circulation and saving is simply the difference between total government spending and revenue. It is important to realize the order of operations here: The governments has to spend before it can tax, or else there wouldn't be any money to tax.

[–] konki@lemmy.one 0 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

[...] pulls resources (employees, production, etc) from other parts of the economy, increasing the costs of the remaining resources since there's less available.

That is why I specified that there needed to be excess productive capacity for whatever they are buying. As long as the economy is not at full employment, the government isn't bidding up the prices with its spending.

At full employment though, you are absolutely right.

[–] konki@lemmy.one 3 points 3 weeks ago

Both Weimar and Zimbabwe, and all other examples of hyperinflationary economies (many Latin American countries come to mind), had large debts denominated in foreign currencies, or had fixed exchange rates with such. This makes the government depenent on aquireing these forein currencies which they themselves cannot issue. Printing your own currency to pay these debts is definately inflationary, but doing so to pay for goods priced in your own domestic currency, when there is excess productive capacity, is not.

[–] konki@lemmy.one 5 points 3 weeks ago

Then, imagine if the comic printing company had a guy with a gun going around demanding everyone give him an amount of comic books each year. Now suddenly everyone is looking to get the comic books, driving their values up.

This is how taxes are driving the value of modern money.

 

Hey! How do I change the gesture needed to answer a phone call. Right now I do it by swiping upwards, but this results in me answering the phone any time I pull the phone out of my pocket to see who is calling, which is of course very unfortunate if I don't actually want to talk to them.

view more: next ›