SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
buswolley writes:
"Is the United States or the EU really too poor to afford to build the things each needs to maintain prosperous nations? Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) posits that America is not too poor in real resources to do the things it needs to do, and now proponents of the theory have adapted the rules of the classic board game Monopoly to demonstrate their case. For those that do not know what modern monetary theory is about, a suitable primer on the topic might be Warren Mosler's Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economy Policy or Diagrams and Dollars, either as a book on Amazon or on-line for free at NewEconomicsPerspectives.org.
While the Modern Monetary Theory perspective tends to elicit disbelief and even rage, I think it is important for any scientist and geek to weigh the evidence carefully, and by doing so understand better about how and why money is created and destroyed."
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Friday March 14 2014, @12:35AM
This is an interesting conversation, although your arguments are not quite convincing.
But let me dispense with the jobs guarantee because it is something that, to my mind, lead to an over empowerment of government. Does this surprise you? No the jobs guarantee gives too much power to government in this way. If government raises the wage that it will pay as an alternative source of employment, private industry will have to raise their wages payed. For example, if the government decides to raise the minimum wage payed to 10,000 per hour private sector could not compete, and there will be, at least initially, a government take over of the labor force. Moreover, there would be a massive change in the balance of political power, if we can agree that money = political power. Eventually, the economy might adjust and private employers would be able to pay more than the guaranteed government job. However, all the government would need to do is to keep the pay rate growth above the rate of productivity.
Instead, I currently prefer a form of helicopter drop. Yes this is maligned. Let's call it a civil inheritance for having a strong nation. Each is born with an equal inheritance sum of money (untouchable by parents), and given at some later legal age. Why do I prefer an inheritance rather than a jobs guarantee? First, once given it is no longer in government control. In many ways this is born of a libertarian ideal. Do what you can with the gift using your own abilities. A little start up money giving both space and time to be entrepreneurs. The lazy will be lazy of course, but nothing will change that. But the children of the lazy get that enhanced chance.
subicular junctures
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 15 2014, @07:40PM
If you have specific questions I'll do my best to give you specific responses.
Nope. The measure of tolerable rates of government intervention is a serious question in the fields of political and behavioural economics, so your surmise isn't outlandish.
Well, Chairman Mao said that political power grows from the barrel of a gun, but money is certainly a proxy for certain elements, so I'll go along with your approach here. Yes, the government's fiat money backing fiat employment is massively destabilising (and inflationary, because of its role in the supply and demand for money).
So, if I understand what you mean, it would be something like every 25 year old getting a lump sum without any particular preconditions.
Effectively just another government transfer. Arguably most of that cash would be squandered quickly, so it would amount to a fairly conventional enforced reduction in saving (by removing money from the hands of those with it, who would otherwise have saved some proportion) and increase in expenditures (minus the frictional costs of tax administration) because it's pretty much a cinch that most 25 year olds will see that money evaporate pretty darned quickly.
And since it happens pretty much every year (because a new cohort reaches 25 years of age, or whatever age you pick) it just turns into a regular money churn, with the government machinery picking up a percentage every year. Honestly, it's kind of anti-libertarian.
Alternatively, if you're back to the money-printing option, it turns out every bit as inflationary as any other money-printing option.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 17 2014, @11:39PM
I married libertarians to popular fiscal policy.
Libertarians are fond of contracts.
Advance a loan to each citizen with interest. Payment is due in 10,000 years. If you are of legal age you can sign and get the citizen loan. Winners will be productive. The others' demand push will provide the grit for each winner. Old growth forest is important, but the Forest dies without new saplings.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 23 2014, @11:29PM
The contracts have, in contractarian philosophy, to be actually enforceable and plausible and to otherwise contain no invalidating terms.
I can't see any contractarian going for this. If you consider the debt to be a transferrable asset, which is typical, then you're still not avoiding theoretically plausible, crippling debt (or complete devaluation to the point of meaninglessness, through inflation). In regimes in which debts and assets get sorted out in probate planning, you're just applying some kind of penalty to the estate. And what about bankruptcies?
Short answer, this is at best a meaningless helicopter drop of money with a veneer of respectability of no substantial value. Alternatively, the government is just buying perpetuities as a masked way of raising taxes.
If I were in such a regime? I'd either assess it and find it to be insane, and ride that pony into the ground, or run screaming. I see no way of guaranteeing a balanced outcome.