[Steve_American]

Wrong. Unlike MMTers, I just also understand some other things.

That is more accurately considered a policy that many MMTers support, but is not actually a part of MMT, which is descriptive.

It is a way to see modern debt-money-based monetary systems more clearly in some ways, but it gets things wrong in other ways.
Which makes MMT useless, or even harmful.

As long as MMT is used to paper over the root problem -- privilege, especially landowner privilege -- it will be worse than useless: it will be a distraction and a diversion.

TtP, and lurkers, I have it on the authority of 2 of the 3 founders of MMT that the Job Guarantee Program *IS* a key part of MMT. One will admit that it is a policy proposal, but the other sticks to the claim that MMT has zero policy proposals.

TtP it would be nice if you would not make unfalsifiable assertions like MMT is right about some things and wrong about others. Being specific is useful to your followers.

.

[Truth To Power]

They amount to the fears of private equity in the face of their financial system's unsupportable overhang -- even *with* central banking -- and overall *fragility*.

The debt money system -- which is needed to finance purchases of landowner privilege -- is inherently unstable.

TTP, while *nominally* anti-privatization and communalist, really only has *localist* politics, bemoaning that there can't be more than one official owner for any given parcel of land, since other prospective buyers are then shut-out once the sale is final.

What on earth do you even incorrectly imagine you think you might be talking about? You have just falsely imputed half a dozen ridiculous claims to me. The fundamental fact, which as a Marxist you have to refuse to know, is that rightful property is founded on an act of production, not appropriation, as owning the things one has caused to exist does not abrogate anyone else's rights.

[Truth To Power]

TtP, and lurkers, I have it on the authority of 2 of the 3 founders of MMT that the Job Guarantee Program *IS* a key part of MMT.

Then they are confused about what a "theory" is.

One will admit that it is a policy proposal, but the other sticks to the claim that MMT has zero policy proposals.

Unlike your "authorities," I am not confused about what a theory is.

TtP it would be nice if you would not make unfalsifiable assertions like MMT is right about some things and wrong about others. Being specific is useful to your followers.

MMT is correct about the issuance of money by the national government in a modern monetary system. It is incorrect that all money is debt (some MMTers do not subscribe to this view, but most do). It is also incorrect that government can issue money without inflation as long as there is unused production capacity. It is also incorrect that the JG will solve the problems of unemployment and poverty because landowners will just take any additional wages obtained through the JG via increased location rents.

[ckaihatsu]

The debt money system -- which is needed to finance purchases of landowner privilege -- is inherently unstable.

Agreed.


[ADDITION]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTX

rightful property is founded on an act of production, not appropriation

'Production', eh -- ? (grin)

What are you going to do about *corporate personhood* -- if outdated economic practices like *inheritance* are done-away-with then who or what *does* control the parcel / property once someone passes away?

Did the heir 'produce' the receipts that he or she inherited -- of course not, so that's out. Would incoming generations of individuals each have to 'start from scratch', and 100% 'earn' your downright-*holy*, 'purely-meritocratic' currency notes growing up in a world of purely *equity* values, and none others -- ? *I* tend to think that the cities' towers would be just as tall -- even *imposing*, arguably, as any world of pre-existing capital values would be, *anyway*, however-else the land itself may be managed.

TLDR: Land aside, pre-existing *war chests* of capital immediately make worlds of economic inequalities, even starting from an equity-values-only landscape, since equity values *do* exist -- and are *pre-existing* for any geoist-type scenario.

Note the historical role of equity values here:

The liquidation of the Soviet Union in 1991-92 and the decision by the Chinese Stalinist regime to open the way for the integration of the Chinese economy, and above all the multi-millioned Chinese working class, into the circuit of global capital, marked a major turning point. It was these events that made possible a mode of accumulation based on finance capital.

The opening up of China, with labour costs one thirtieth of those in the US and other major capitalist countries, provided the basis for an expansion in the mass of surplus value extracted by capital from the working class. In a recent speech hailing the virtues of globalisation, European Commissioner Peter Mandelson noted that a Chinese manufacturing firm producing an iPod receives only $4 for a device that retails for $290 in the US.

Mandelson was pointing to a process in which surplus value extracted in China is then distributed to other sections of capital in the form of license fees, rents on shopping centres, and interest to banks and financial institutions.

This relationship with China formed a kind of virtuous economic circle. Cheap manufactured goods kept down the rate of inflation, allowing the Fed to lower interest rates in the US without worrying about inflation.

Cheaper credit fueled various asset bubbles—the share market bubble, the dot.com bubble and the housing bubble—that financed the debt, while helping to sustain US consumption levels in the absence of real wage increases. At the same time, Chinese authorities invested their trade surpluses in US financial assets, in order to keep down the value of the yuan against the dollar and ensure the maintenance of export markets. This also helped keep US interest rates low and sustain the supply of cheap credit, which, in turn, sustained the asset bubbles.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/12/nbe4-d23.html

---

as owning the things one has caused to exist does not abrogate anyone else's rights.

One man owns a machine which does the work of five hundred men. Five hundred men are, in consequence, thrown out of employment, and, having no work to do, become hungry and take to thieving. The one man secures the produce of the machine and keeps it, and has five hundred times as much as he should have, and probably, which is of much more importance, a great deal more than he really wants.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... /soul-man/

[Truth To Power]

'Production', eh -- ? (grin)

Yes. Production.

What are you going to do about *corporate personhood*

A corporation is just a delegated form of ownership. The idea that a corporation is legally a person with human rights is confused. It is just a legal fiction that can own things, enter into contracts, etc.

-- if outdated economic practices like *inheritance* are done-away-with then who or what *does* control the parcel / property once someone passes away?

Inheritance is not outdated. It's just a consensual gift that does not abrogate anyone's rights. The problem with inheritance is inheritance of property that was never rightful in the first place, like slaves, land titles, IP monopolies, etc.

Did the heir 'produce' the receipts that he or she inherited -- of course not, so that's out.

No, that's just garbage with no basis in economic fact, logic or morality. Valid property rights are conserved in consensual transactions -- but wrongful property like slaves, land titles, IP monopolies, etc. cannot be sanitized or legitimized no matter how many "consensual" transactions they pass through because they abrogate rights just by existing.

Would incoming generations of individuals each have to 'start from scratch', and 100% 'earn' your downright-*holy*, 'purely-meritocratic' currency notes growing up in a world of purely *equity* values, and none others -- ?

No, they would get whatever help anyone gave them by their own choice. Whether an owner has "earned" an asset is irrelevant to the validity of their title. Their title of ownership is valid as long as it does not abrogate anyone else's rights. So a title of ownership to a slave, a land parcel, an IP monopoly, a bank license, etc. can never be valid, as it always inherently abrogates others' rights.

TLDR: Land aside, pre-existing *war chests* of capital immediately make worlds of economic inequalities, even starting from an equity-values-only landscape, since equity values *do* exist -- and are *pre-existing* for any geoist-type scenario.

Economic inequalities are not a problem because people do not all deserve the same economic condition. Economic injustice is the problem.

Note the historical role of equity values here:

The notion that when investment increases production the increase is somehow being taken from the workers is just stupid Marxist bull$#!+ directly contrary to fact.

One man owns a machine which does the work of five hundred men. Five hundred men are, in consequence, thrown out of employment, and, having no work to do, become hungry and take to thieving.

No, that's just more stupid, evil Marxist filth contrary to economic fact. There is still plenty of work to do, so if the men have their rights, they will just move on to the next opportunity, and the increase in production the machine's owner has caused increases abundance and reduces prices for all. It is only when landowner privilege legally entitles landowners to take all the additional production that investment in machinery creates that the workers are not made better off by the machinery.

The one man secures the produce of the machine and keeps it, and has five hundred times as much as he should have, and probably, which is of much more importance, a great deal more than he really wants.

No, that's just more stupid, evil Marxist filth contrary to indisputable economic fact. The machine owner does not get to keep the additional production he creates because his profit tends to be competed away -- unless he has a monopoly privilege, of course. Marxists just dishonestly pretend that owning a machine whose return is competed away is the same as owning land whose returns cannot be competed away.

[late]

Sigh.

Once more, into the breach...

Law creates value. It really is that simple. You don't invest time or money into something you don't own, or can easily be taken from you.

The ability to own property is fundamental to any economic system.

So when TP drones on, for the 100th time, about the evils of property, he has not simply left the economic mainstream, he has left sanity.

This is not to say he is entirely wrong, just 80-90% wrong. The people do have a political and economic interest in how things are arranged. Thus any just legal system has to balance their interests against those of the property holder.

What I saying here is that he is no different from the guys that stand on a soapbox and scream about the end of the world.

[Truth To Power]

Law creates value. It really is that simple.

No it isn't. Value is what something would trade for. Trade, and therefore value, existed prior to and without law. However, law can create a tradable entitlement to benefit from the abrogation of others' rights that has value, like a land deed, a slave deed, or an IP monopoly privilege.

You don't invest time or money into something you don't own, or can easily be taken from you.

That will be news to the people who invest immense time and money into their children, or scientific research, or public parks. It will also be news to the people of Hong Kong, who invested enough time and money into land they did not own to build a great city.

The ability to own property is fundamental to any economic system.

Like slaves? Can you find a willingness to know the fact that property is not all equally validly and rightfully owned?

So when TP drones on, for the 100th time, about the evils of property, he has not simply left the economic mainstream, he has left sanity.

You are just makin' $#!+ up again. It is Marxists who advocate abolition of private property because like you, they cannot tell the difference between rightful property in the fruits of one's labor and wrongful property in others' rights to liberty.

This is not to say he is entirely wrong, just 80-90% wrong.

You have not shown I am wrong about anything, nor will you ever be doing so.

The people do have a political and economic interest in how things are arranged. Thus any just legal system has to balance their interests against those of the property holder.

Justice is not a matter of balancing interests. It is a matter of rewards commensurate with contributions and costs commensurate with deprivations. "Balancing" the interests of producers and thieves just gives the thieves unearned wealth at the expense of the producers.

What I saying here is that he is no different from the guys that stand on a soapbox and scream about the end of the world.

Silliness with no basis in fact.

[late]

No it isn't. Value is what something would trade for. Trade, and therefore value, existed prior to and without law. However, law can create a tradable entitlement to benefit from the abrogation of others' rights that has value, like a land deed, a slave deed, or an IP monopoly privilege.

That will be news...

That will be news to no one that knows how capitalism works.

[Truth To Power]

That will be news to no one that knows how capitalism works.

No, I already proved you wrong. Even under capitalism, people devote enormous time and effort to things they don't and can't own. Look at how much time and effort you have devoted to this forum.

[late]

No, I already proved you wrong.

You're not fighting with me.

Economics is determined by economists, not goofy eccentrics in general forums. You had lost before you ever started.

[ckaihatsu]

You're not fighting with me.

Economics is determined by economists, not goofy eccentrics in general forums. You had lost before you ever started.

If I *may*, late -- the crux of TTP's politics is that *land* should be communalized (with a nondescript, undefined monolithic state apparatus / administration as the 'single-payer landlord').

Eschewing *all* such rentier-type capital (necessarily-non-commodity-producing assets and resources) -- if I have TTP's politics correctly -- still leaves society with *equity* capital and its accompanying economic exploitation of labor, every hour of every day.


labor and capital, side-by-side

Spoiler: show

material-economic exploitation

Spoiler: show

Spoiler: show

[late]

If I *may*, late -- the crux of TTP's politics is that *land* should be communalized (with a nondescript, undefined monolithic state apparatus / administration as the 'single-payer landlord').

Eschewing *all* such rentier-type capital (necessarily-non-commodity-producing assets and resources) -- if I have TTP's politics correctly -- still leaves society with *equity* capital and its accompanying economic exploitation of labor, every hour of every day.


labor and capital, side-by-side

Spoiler: show

material-economic exploitation

Spoiler: show

Spoiler: show

There is some talk amongst Left leaning economists about using that idea. Not the way TP uses it, but (in effect) giving it standing as another interest in the mix of competing interests.

But the way he proposes, the paperwork alone boggles the mind. People don't usually describe it that way, but a fair amount of what goes on (like the TVB bank crisis) is really just maintaining what we have.

It used to be that, once in a generation, Congress would update the tax code. It happened once, because anyone that had been through it absolutely refused to ever do it again. This would be thousands of times hairier, assuming the legal system allowed it, which I doubt.

[ckaihatsu]

There is some talk amongst Left leaning economists about using that idea. Not the way TP uses it, but (in effect) giving it standing as another interest in the mix of competing interests.

But the way he proposes, the paperwork alone boggles the mind. People don't usually describe it that way, but a fair amount of what goes on (like the TVB bank crisis) is really just maintaining what we have.

Endlessly *treading water* just doesn't sound that *attractive*, late.

It used to be that, once in a generation, Congress would update the tax code. It happened once, because anyone that had been through it absolutely refused to ever do it again. This would be thousands of times hairier, assuming the legal system allowed it, which I doubt.

*My* standing critique is 'How would you get from 'here', to 'there' -- ?'

Land / real-estate is currently in *private* hands, except for anything *government*, so how does such real estate become 'single landlord' -- like 'single payer' for government-administered health care, obviously.

[Truth To Power]

You're not fighting with me.

Because you can't defend your claims.

Economics is determined by economists, not goofy eccentrics in general forums. You had lost before you ever started.

Economics is determined by economies. I always win because I rely on indisputable fact and irrefutable logic.

[Truth To Power]

If I *may*, late -- the crux of TTP's politics is that *land* should be communalized (with a nondescript, undefined monolithic state apparatus / administration as the 'single-payer landlord').

No, the crux is respect for the equal individual rights of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor.

Eschewing *all* such rentier-type capital (necessarily-non-commodity-producing assets and resources) -- if I have TTP's politics correctly -- still leaves society with *equity* capital and its accompanying economic exploitation of labor, every hour of every day.

No, it's logically impossible for ownership of the fruits of one's labor to cause economic exploitation of labor because the worker is not made any worse off than if the owner had never existed. As it encourages and enables relief of the general scarcity, the producer's ownership of what he causes to exist therefore makes everyone better off.

If the worker does not like the economic opportunity the employer/entrepreneur/producer offers, he can just decline and make his living some other way. By contrast, he can't just decline to pay the landowner for permission to access economic opportunity that would otherwise have been available, because the landowner has already been given ownership of the worker's liberty right to access it. He must pay the landowner for permission to earn a living or starve to death. That really is exploitation of labor every hour of every day.

[Truth To Power]

There is some talk amongst Left leaning economists about using that idea.

All honest and competent economists are in favor of location subsidy repayment as the principal source of public revenue.

Not the way TP uses it, but (in effect) giving it standing as another interest in the mix of competing interests.

Liberty and justice are not just additional interests in a mix of competing interests. They are the standard of rightfulness that all other competing interests must be subordinated to.

But the way he proposes, the paperwork alone boggles the mind.

No, you simply made that up. Each landholder would simply get a monthly bill for the subsidy he is receiving, much like his monthly utility bills, credit card bill, rent, or mortgage payment. If you don't pay for what you are taking, you don't get to take it.

This would be thousands of times hairier, assuming the legal system allowed it, which I doubt.

No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again, as usual.

[Truth To Power]

*My* standing critique is 'How would you get from 'here', to 'there' -- ?'

Which is pretty funny, coming from a Marxist. The process of changing from injustice to justice is actually simple: stop stealing, and require the privileged to pay for what they are taking. All that's needed is political will.

Land / real-estate is currently in *private* hands, except for anything *government*, so how does such real estate become 'single landlord' -- like 'single payer' for government-administered health care, obviously.

Just start sending landholders monthly bills for what they are taking from the community.

[ckaihatsu]

If I *may*, late -- the crux of TTP's politics is that *land* should be communalized (with a nondescript, undefined monolithic state apparatus / administration as the 'single-payer landlord').

No, the crux is respect for the equal individual rights of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor.

But here's the thing -- *you* consider 'fruits of their labor' to include the 'immortality' of capital, as the 'yardstick' / measurement of the economic exploitation of human labor, per hour of every day.

In other words it's not even about the immortality of flows of capital, but moreso it's about the cash-*flow*, which can't really be allowed to *slow down* because then it's obviously performing at less than its full potential.

People's *incomes* depend on the machinations of equity capital, unfortunately, for jobs and the resulting actually *socially productive* segment of production, and/or all other kinds, under capitalism.

Eschewing *all* such rentier-type capital (necessarily-non-commodity-producing assets and resources) -- if I have TTP's politics correctly -- still leaves society with *equity* capital and its accompanying economic exploitation of labor, every hour of every day.

No, it's logically impossible for ownership of the fruits of one's labor to cause economic exploitation of labor because the worker is not made any worse off than if the owner had never existed. As it encourages and enables relief of the general scarcity, the producer's ownership of what he causes to exist therefore makes everyone better off.

Capital here takes on godlike powers -- all hail equity capital!

If the worker does not like the economic opportunity the employer/entrepreneur/producer offers, he can just decline and make his living some other way. By contrast, he can't just decline to pay the landowner for permission to access economic opportunity that would otherwise have been available, because the landowner has already been given ownership of the worker's liberty right to access it. He must pay the landowner for permission to earn a living or starve to death. That really is exploitation of labor every hour of every day.

---

*My* standing critique is 'How would you get from 'here', to 'there' -- ?'

Which is pretty funny, coming from a Marxist. The process of changing from injustice to justice is actually simple: stop stealing, and require the privileged to pay for what they are taking. All that's needed is political will.

Still fairy-tale if you're pivoting everything around *equity* values. The meritocracy never existed, and the *dollars* (etc.) its 'value' is measured in -- FIRE superstructural / social-convention aspects, basically -- are just as culturally biased, one could safely say.

The stealing is that of the workers' surplus labor value.

Land / real-estate is currently in *private* hands, except for anything *government*, so how does such real estate become 'single landlord' -- like 'single payer' for government-administered health care, obviously.

Just start sending landholders monthly bills for what they are taking from the community.

Organizational / network considerations aside, what's the *administration* here? Who or what is it accountable to?

[late]

No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again, as usual.

Thanks, first laugh of the day.

[late]

Endlessly *treading water* just doesn't sound that *attractive*, late.

I'm too old for castles in the clouds...

You notice TP has his panties in a twist? I loved that line where he said economics is determined by economies.

For anyone without the training, he just told us this is his religion.