www.persuasion.community
I doubt he viewed his life that way. As regards his "afterlife" unfortunately you'll never know.
I know you intended that to be more frivolity, but the sad fact is it's true.
Thats rich coming from the guy who attributes disagreements on the macro economy to authoritarianism.
I have never had a problem with "disagreements," as you well know. My problem has always been the insistence by one side or the other to use the police power of the state to force its interpretation on everybody else. It's a subtlety that I know you recognize and understand, but prefer to pretend you don't. It's the very definition of authoritarianism. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's a subtlety you don't understand.
This was less than a week ago
I’m missing your point. An economy would be hard pressed to be more authoritarian than MMT. How else can one describe an economy in which politicians are given free reign to print as much fiat money as they want and hand it out to their political allies?
You can't think of any economy more authoritarian than a market economy with a central bank that targets overnight interbank interest rates?
That's what MMT describes. You call things authoritarian without bothering to know what you are talking about
I don't want you to think I’m running away from the discussion, but my old ball and chain says to put down that damned phone and get after her honey-do’s. I’ll be happy to rejoin tomortow.
As is so often the case I don’t know what you mean by that’s what MMT “describes.” I will readily admit and agree up front that you are far, far better versed on MMT than me. I am nothing more than a lowly vacuum cleaner salesman who doesn’t have the time, intelligence or inclination to invest in detailed study, and relies on people (in this case economists) who I trust to give an honest analysis. In the case of MMT I know of no economist who advocates for free markets that lends support to the implementation of MMT. As an anarcho-capitalist libertarian I trust the word of free market economists over statist ones.
Dan, MMT has been implemented since at least Nixon and arguably since Wilson. You don't know of any free market advocates that have been in support of the US economic system since Nixon?
Three hard headed realists. Again look at you: Pilt, AOC, and Bernie disagree with you on MMT because they are socialist. "if someone in any way disagrees with [Dan's ideas about economics] it must be for the lowest possible reason and if you found the lowest possible motive you have found the right one. There's this whole culture of no one would leave us or quarrel with us if they weren't a [socialist (counterpoint Medic007)]. It is actually a very sick mentality and very widespread.”
Again it has been in practice since at least Nixon.
Dan, your beef appears to be with the modern welfare state not people accurately describing how that welfare state is financed.
And here is appears that your beef is with the US constitution and representative government?
And here you pontificate more on something you have admitted to knowing nothing about. Bravo!
The sovereign monetary system described by MMT has been implemented for decades. The sovereign monetary system described by MMT does not have a robust built in process for preventing inflation. MMT scholars would tell you that the sovereign monetary system we have now is chiefly constrained by inflation. There have been two instances of inflation since Nixon. One coincided with and oil embargo and the other with COVID. Milton Friedman approves of the US monetary system. Is he too Socialist for you?
That's weird Dan, because you are the one here disagreeing with MMT on purely ideological grounds and posting articles based on hard money fantasies. The MMT people describe reality far more accurately than the ideologues at AEIR.org
So what is your problem with MMT. All the relations are market based. No one is forcing you to hold, accept or transact in dollars. It is completely voluntary. Where is the authoritarianism?
Okay Dan, here is the problem with you. You act like you are arguing in good faith against a policy or system when in reality you are simply opposed to the existence of the state. Just skip to that part. "I am opposed to MMT because it implies the existence of a state" "I am against Medicare for all because it implies the existence of a state" and we can agree to disagree or argue about whether the existence of a state is good or bad, but lets cut to the chase next time please. And in reality the quote is now ""if someone in any way disagrees with [Anarchism] it must be for the lowest possible reason and if you found the lowest possible motive you have found the right one. There's this whole culture of no one would leave us or quarrel with us if they weren't a [Authoritarian]. It is actually a very sick mentality and very widespread.”
Okay, well Dan its not actually good to comment on things you don't know anything about. Its okay with me if you are anti-MMT because your tribe is anti-MMT, just don't argue with it on that basis. Because here I am stuck trying to engage with you on the subject on there merits and all you can really say is "well the guys I normally agree with tell me I am right."
Dan, I'm not a socialist and I understand MMT. It has nothing to do with any political ideology despite your attempts to make it that way.
Like I said earlier, when three avowed socialists enthusiastically endorse MMT I am prone to wonder what it is about MMT they find so enchanting. Is it not likely that they see it as a necessary step toward their desired outcome of socialism? I think that’s exactly what they like about it. Baby steps toward nirvana. When MMT was first discussed on this board (at least by me) I posted several links that were highly critical, links which discussed at length the potential for inflation - and even runaway inflation - and our friend @07pilt assured us that is nonsense, that elements were in play to prevent it. I can’t help but wonder why we have inflation today considering we have MMT in place. And throwing out excuses like were provided today is strikingly reminiscent of socialist claims that the failures weren’t “real socialism.” The earlier discussions touched heavily on the proposition that governments (read politicians) can print money at will and disperse it to needed projects (read: dispersals to companies in bed with the dispersers), and inflation would be controlled via destroying the bills that make it back to the government and adjusting taxes as needed (read: tax the middle class and poor who are on the back end of the money pipeline).
Look Medic, I know I am on the losing side of the argument. Politicians and favored capitalists cannot turn their backs in a gravitational theory that keeps them so firmly on earth. It's the goose that translates mass into weight.
Off topic here I know, but this is what @Ponca Dan does. He often argues against something he doesn't know what he is talking about.
Interesting. Where does MMT draw the line and say “that inflationary rate is not possible with MMT?”
I don't recall pilt ever posting that MMT had "elements in play" to "prevent" inflation. In fact, we've discussed how inflation can occur in our fiat currency system and how it can be managed.
Dan, you're struggling because you can't let go of the notion that MMT is somehow political. Can the government abuse its ability to "print money?" The answer is yes and both sides of the political spectrum have participated. Does MMT cause that? No, absolutely it does not. It's simply a description of how our monetary system works.
Because... Sovereign monetary systems do not prevent inflation. In fact MMTers explicitly acknowledge that inflation is one of the consequences of poor policy in a sovereign monetary system. But I bet AEIR.org doesn't tell you that part.
Your first line tells it all. And that’s why MMT goes off the tracks from the beginning. There is no way an MMTer would draw an inflationary red line because he knows it could be (and the AIER crowd knows it would be) crossed in a heartbeat and he would be considered a fool for making such a declaration.
I’m an okd man with a touchy memory, but I distinctly recall Pilt pooh-poohing inflation as a concern/possibility under MMT, it’s one of the last things we should worry about. I remember it because many of the anti-MMT links I posted talked pointedly about inflationary possibilities.
Dan MMT is merely a description of how our monetary system works. How the private banking system, central bank, private sector, and federal treasury interact. A consequence of the way they interact is that when the Treasury auctions bonds there is always a market for them. These means that the government always has access to dollar funding. This is descriptive not prescriptive. BBB is not an MMT policy it is an liberal/progressive policy, the trump tax cuts weren't MMT either, but the both happen with the US monetary system which is a sovereign currency system with a central bank that targets an interest rate.
That's a bunch of words that say nothing. Dan, look at the example I gave you and engage me in that conversation.
This is the first intelligible thing you’ve said on the subject, and is at a wide tangent from how you defended MMT in our earlier conversations. It gives a lot to think about.
By rejecting the $100 in the first place, and utilizing its own policy. By using its own scrip. By settling on gold or some other entity as the medium of exchange rather than government fiat currency. There is nothing requiring the private sector to use fiat currency except the threat of, or use of, violence against those who defy.
Wow, Dan. Just because that might be the first time you you've understood,l doesn't mean what pilt has posted before was "the first intelligent he's said about the subject." That's bush league on your part.
