Blog-Reference on Jan 31
Jonathan Portes is wrong with regard to inflation. See
► Gov-Deficits do NOT cause inflation
► MMT and the inflation-red-herring
The government deficit causes a one-off price hike but NOT inflation. Repeating the deficit period after period leaves the price at an elevated level. This holds for current output. Deficit spending on investment goods is an entirely different matter. Both cases are constantly confused.
The lethal effect of MMT policy is NOT on inflation but on DISTRIBUTION. See
► Stephanie Kelton on how to become fabulously wealthy
Anti-MMTers are just as incompetent as MMTers. So
► Debunking idiots does not prove that MMT is valid
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
For details of the big picture see cross-references Profit/Distribution.
More on "tax the rich" see AXECquery.
You say: “You seem to assume that deficits shall be financed with sovereign debt?”
No. In the elementary case Public Deficit = Private Profit, deficit spending creates first business sector deposits (= money) and government sector overdrafts on the balance sheet of the Central Bank. Whether the overdrafts are consolidated by selling bonds is a separate question. See
► MMT: Not a joke but a fraud
REPLY to Bob Roddis on Jan 18
You say: “As far as AXEC, his basic point that spending in more than we tax out is bad IF WE ALLOW IT to accumulate to wealthy hoarders of our public good ("money"), is correct. We need far higher taxes on the rich, not for "paying for things," but to stop the wealthy from corrupting our political system …”
You directly contradict the official MMT doctrine which says “Don’t tax the rich.” See
► MMT: Academic snake oil for the people
MMTers like to have it both ways. Schizo is the very logic of the political agenda pusher.
You say: “I think you need to show sources ― any sources at all ― that show "MMT" saying/writing "Don’t tax the rich." I doubt you can.”
I have given the source already above. Here it is again for the illiterate/retarded
► MMT: Academic snake oil for the people
MMTers in general and Stephanie Kelton, in particular, have a problem. As useful idiots for the Oligarchy, they have preached for years now 'make deficits―don’t tax'. Taxes are NOT needed for spending, only for inflation control, and there is NO inflation.
But now this happens: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Elizabeth Warren come forward with a marginal tax rate of 70% and a new wealth tax.
From the MMT standpoint, this is madness the super-rich have to blame themselves for. See
► Stephanie Kelton and the self-destructive stupidity of the super-rich
► MMT is NOT bold policy but spineless fraud
You say: “Pointing out that playing a zero sum game of finding tax revenue from someone before you fund something else is unnecessary is not the same as saying ‘dont tax the rich’.”
No, it is NOT the same, and I never said so. The fact is that MMTers say (i) don’t tax for revenue and (ii) don’t tax the rich: “Bill Mitchell is politically consistent. He not only promotes deficit spending but also downplays the idea of taxing the rich and closing their tax havens: ‘Do we need the rich’s money?’ ‘No’.”#1
As good foot soldiers of the Oligarchy, MMTers see to it that the rich get their profits via deficit-spending/money-creation, their interest on government bonds, which the IRS conveniently takes from WeThePeople, and that the rich’s tax rates are low and the loopholes are big and that the foundations/charities/think tanks/lobbies are tax exempt.
The thing is that billionaire folks like Pete Peterson are really so daft that they complain about deficit-spending/money-creation. Capitalism is already for a long time on the life-support of public deficit-spending.* Zero deficit means zero macroeconomic profit. Any complaints of the Oligarchy about the State saving Capitalism from breakdown are pure madness.
On this point Stephanie Kelton is right: “The Wealthy Are Victims of Their Own Propaganda.”
From the standpoint of simple self-interest and because of Public Deficit = Private Profit, the one-percenters and their useful academic idiots should consistently argue FOR deficit spending, and the ninety-nine-percenters and their useful academic idiots should consistently argue AGAINST it.#2
Curiously, it’s just the opposite.
#1 MMT: Academic snake oil for the people
#2 Austerity and the political games Progressives play
* Twitter Feb 2
***
REPLY to Andrew Anderson on Jan 31You say: “You seem to assume that deficits shall be financed with sovereign debt?”
No. In the elementary case Public Deficit = Private Profit, deficit spending creates first business sector deposits (= money) and government sector overdrafts on the balance sheet of the Central Bank. Whether the overdrafts are consolidated by selling bonds is a separate question. See
► MMT: Not a joke but a fraud
REPLY to Bob Roddis on Jan 18
***
REPLY to Clint Ballinger on Feb 1You say: “As far as AXEC, his basic point that spending in more than we tax out is bad IF WE ALLOW IT to accumulate to wealthy hoarders of our public good ("money"), is correct. We need far higher taxes on the rich, not for "paying for things," but to stop the wealthy from corrupting our political system …”
You directly contradict the official MMT doctrine which says “Don’t tax the rich.” See
► MMT: Academic snake oil for the people
MMTers like to have it both ways. Schizo is the very logic of the political agenda pusher.
***
REPLY to Clint Ballinger on Feb 2You say: “I think you need to show sources ― any sources at all ― that show "MMT" saying/writing "Don’t tax the rich." I doubt you can.”
I have given the source already above. Here it is again for the illiterate/retarded
► MMT: Academic snake oil for the people
***
REPLY to Clint Ballinger on Feb 2MMTers in general and Stephanie Kelton, in particular, have a problem. As useful idiots for the Oligarchy, they have preached for years now 'make deficits―don’t tax'. Taxes are NOT needed for spending, only for inflation control, and there is NO inflation.
But now this happens: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Elizabeth Warren come forward with a marginal tax rate of 70% and a new wealth tax.
From the MMT standpoint, this is madness the super-rich have to blame themselves for. See
► Stephanie Kelton and the self-destructive stupidity of the super-rich
► MMT is NOT bold policy but spineless fraud
***
REPLY to Greg on Feb 2You say: “Pointing out that playing a zero sum game of finding tax revenue from someone before you fund something else is unnecessary is not the same as saying ‘dont tax the rich’.”
No, it is NOT the same, and I never said so. The fact is that MMTers say (i) don’t tax for revenue and (ii) don’t tax the rich: “Bill Mitchell is politically consistent. He not only promotes deficit spending but also downplays the idea of taxing the rich and closing their tax havens: ‘Do we need the rich’s money?’ ‘No’.”#1
As good foot soldiers of the Oligarchy, MMTers see to it that the rich get their profits via deficit-spending/money-creation, their interest on government bonds, which the IRS conveniently takes from WeThePeople, and that the rich’s tax rates are low and the loopholes are big and that the foundations/charities/think tanks/lobbies are tax exempt.
The thing is that billionaire folks like Pete Peterson are really so daft that they complain about deficit-spending/money-creation. Capitalism is already for a long time on the life-support of public deficit-spending.* Zero deficit means zero macroeconomic profit. Any complaints of the Oligarchy about the State saving Capitalism from breakdown are pure madness.
On this point Stephanie Kelton is right: “The Wealthy Are Victims of Their Own Propaganda.”
From the standpoint of simple self-interest and because of Public Deficit = Private Profit, the one-percenters and their useful academic idiots should consistently argue FOR deficit spending, and the ninety-nine-percenters and their useful academic idiots should consistently argue AGAINST it.#2
Curiously, it’s just the opposite.
#1 MMT: Academic snake oil for the people
#2 Austerity and the political games Progressives play
* Twitter Feb 2
 |
| Source: Twitter |
***
REPLY to Greg on Feb 3
Why don’t you simply follow the links given?
Bill Mitchell’s piece is titled: “The ‘tax the rich’ call bestows unwarranted importance on them.” and “Do we need the rich’s money?” "No".” and FULL NODE says “MMT agrees. Taxing rich people for revenue is a silly claim.” Richard Murphy says: “The time for pussy-footing with new taxes to extract a little more from the rich is yesterday’s news. There is no time for that. This is the time to create money for change.”
This is three MMTers speaking out against taxing the rich.
This answers Clint Ballingers’ silly challenge: “Although, I think you need to show sources ― any sources at all ― that show "MMT" saying/writing "Don’t tax the rich."
And what does Stephanie Kelton tell her fabulously wealthy friends? If you want to avoid taxes you must accept deficits and not complain about them like this brainless billionaire Pete Peterson.
She is right. Pete Peterson simply does not understand that MMT is a wellness program for the Oligarchy.#1
#1 MMT: Redistribution as wellness program
For detailed arguments see Dean Baker on CEPR MMT and Taxing the Rich.
Taxing the rich is contrary to the MMT agenda. According to the macroeconomic Profit Law Q=(G−T), MMT’s deficit-spending/money-creation feeds the Oligarchy permanently with profit and therefore it makes absolutely NO sense to tax it away.
Perhaps the MMT salespeople still believe that MMT is for the benefit of WeThePeople. The fact is that MMT is a wellness program for the Oligarchy. Everyone can check how MMTers consistently argued against taxing the rich before the Green New Deal propaganda hit the headlines.#1
The philosopher Tom Hickey quickly adapted to the new situation and came forward with a new version of Hegel’s cunning of reason: “‘Taxing the rich’ through progressive taxation has another reason. That is, limiting the political power of wealth and reducing inequality.”
The question to MMTers: Why not simply stop deficit-spending/money-creation, the very producer of profit, political power, financial wealth, and inequality?
#1 MMT: Distribution is the drawback NOT Inflation
***
Twitter Feb 11
For detailed arguments see Dean Baker on CEPR MMT and Taxing the Rich.
***
REPLY to Clint Ballinger on Feb 16Taxing the rich is contrary to the MMT agenda. According to the macroeconomic Profit Law Q=(G−T), MMT’s deficit-spending/money-creation feeds the Oligarchy permanently with profit and therefore it makes absolutely NO sense to tax it away.
Perhaps the MMT salespeople still believe that MMT is for the benefit of WeThePeople. The fact is that MMT is a wellness program for the Oligarchy. Everyone can check how MMTers consistently argued against taxing the rich before the Green New Deal propaganda hit the headlines.#1
The philosopher Tom Hickey quickly adapted to the new situation and came forward with a new version of Hegel’s cunning of reason: “‘Taxing the rich’ through progressive taxation has another reason. That is, limiting the political power of wealth and reducing inequality.”
The question to MMTers: Why not simply stop deficit-spending/money-creation, the very producer of profit, political power, financial wealth, and inequality?
#1 MMT: Distribution is the drawback NOT Inflation
***
billy blog Jun 12
Does this mean that we shouldn’t ‘tax the rich’?
The present authors’ values indicate we are all for taxing the rich. But not to get their money.
Rather, the rich should pay higher taxes in order to deprive them of their purchasing power, which translates into economic and political power.
This is not a minor issue.
Ultimately, fuelling the notion that we need the rich folk’s money to ‘[pay for] our schools and our caring services’, as the likes of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell never tire of repeating, is a dangerous and misguided narrative for progressives to engage in.
Not only because it fuels damaging myths about how the monetary system works, but also because it elevates the rich and high-income earners to an indispensable status that is unwarranted.
As Pavlina Tcherneva, from the Levy Economics Institute, notes in her excellent response to Doug Henwood’s rather loopy attack on MMT – MMT Is Already Helping (February 27, 2019):
I would say that Henwood (like other “tax-the-rich-to-pay-for-progress” lefties) is tethered to the wealthy by an imaginary umbilical cord that holds his progressive agenda hostage to his oppressors. To me, this is the definition of a self-induced paralysis.Time to cut the cord. MMT has a profound emancipatory power and the Left would do well to awaken to its potential.
Progressives should come to terms with the fact that the incomes and taxes paid by the rich do not enhance the capacity of a currency-issuing government to provide first-class public services and infrastructure.
***
Twitter Oct 13 |
| Source: Twitter |
***
***
Twitter Oct 21, 2019
***
Twitter Jan 23, 2020
