MMT: overcoming the political divide.

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by a better world, Mar 12, 2020.

  1. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again, false.
    Zero tolerance is not reality, sorry.
    Right. Or isotopes, the Marshall Plan, anime, or Democritus.
    Right, in the sense that it assumes property rights are universal, absolute, and protected.
    I'm right.
    Right.
     
  2. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again no content. The Coase Theorem is the only externality analysis that demands protection of property rights. It makes no evaluation over what those property rights entail. That's up to folk ranting about things being evil ;)

    This is useful mind. From your Georgist script, I always took you as heterodox. I now realise that is a front. All of your comments are actually hyper-orthodox. You're a right winger pretending to be something else. I feel sorrow here. Must be hard for you, accounting for why you flamebait so much.
     
  3. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks for the warning about the rest of your post.
    You can't fight evil if you refuse to identify it. You refuse to identify it and even derogate its identification because you not only do not want to fight it, you don't want anyone else to fight it, either. Simple.
    You are just sad, now.
    You should. If you had any shame (you don't), you would kneel in a cesspool and slit your belly.
    Classic projection.
     
  4. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No content, just flamebait! Let's ask you a question (for you to dodge): What externality analysis protects property rights?
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2020
  5. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    More projection.
    None.
     
  6. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hahahaha! So you support the Pigovian tax knowing that it can't support property rights? We both know the truth: you only refer to the Pigovian tax as you only really understand snippets of Econ 101
     
  7. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    <yawn>
    Of course. Supporting property rights is not the purpose of taxation.
    Then why do you always derogate, ignore, dismiss, ridicule, falsify, evade and reject it?
    Still no content from you. Booorrriiinnnnggg.
     
  8. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your right wing nature continues to ooze out. Essentially your bluster over justice is a sham. With externality analysis you show no support for protecting property rights. You are prepared for an authoritarian government to peddle a market correction myth as you ignore that those suffering the costs from the externality remain uncompensated. Tut tut!
     
  9. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your invariable inability to address facts and consequent reliance on false ad hominem accusations is noted.
    Classic projection.
    So I'm somehow right wing, but don't support protection of property rights?? That's certainly a new one.

    Quick question: do you ever actually read or think about what you have typed before posting it?
    No, you are just makin' $#!+ up, again. Either that or projecting, again.
    Another false statement from you. That externalities imply market failure is not a myth. It's just a fact that you have to find some way of not knowing in order to preserve your false and evil belief system.
    As you know, that is also false. As there is no way to identify or measure all the negative externalities suffered by each individual, and they are in any case typically aggregated and subsumed in location value, I advocate universal, equal compensation for both negative and positive externalities in the form of free, secure tenure on enough of the available advantageous location of one's choice to have access to economic opportunity.
     
  10. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Round and round you go. You advocate continued injustice. You advocate a naivety based on ignoring ecological economics in order to pretend that a benevolent government can eliminate market failure. Im afraid you really are just a right winger abusing Econ 101
     
  11. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ah, no, that describes you:
    See? You just make $#!+ up pretend to be discussing. It's always the same.
    Because it is unscientific nonsense.
    See? You again prove your inadequacy to do anything but make $#!+ up and falsely attribute it to me.
    <yawn> A right winger who doesn't support property rights. That was your asinine claim, wasn't it?
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2020
  12. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No economics again! You have deliberately ignored property rights analysis into externalities, preferring instead an orthodoxy used to favour regressive taxation. Justice isn't a word you understand.
     
  13. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks for the warning about your post.
    No, I have identified the fact that it is unscientific nonsense.
    Because sometimes a regressive tax is both more just and more economically efficient. Proof: smoking is inversely related to income, so taxing it is "regressive," but taxes on tobacco products have led to dramatic declines in smoking and related harms. Making people pay in proportion for the harm they do to the community might be "regressive" because the poor generally behave less responsibly than the more affluent, but it improves outcomes for the whole society.
    No, it is a word you have proved YOU do not understand, by preferring injustice over "regressive" taxation.
     
  14. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Interesting point.

    [I would prefer an education system capable of teaching students not to take up smoking. And a MMT JG would encourage everyone to take more responsibility for their own choices, and would therefore profoundly change society, as well as eliminating the Poverty Industry based on unemployment/inadequate incomes].

    Re the purpose of taxation in MMT (apart from the purpose you outlined above): taxes destroy money, enabling government to reduce private sector spending power, even in specific sectors of the economy, if inflation threatens to arise.
    Taxation is not required for the currency-issuing government to spend, which is the neoliberal mythology.
     
  15. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No you havent. You've given jibberish. The Coase Theorem and the Pigovian tax are constructed from the same base. The difference is that the latter ignores property rights and assumes a government with perfect knowledge. Of course if such a government exists they could nationalise everything and simple replace the Walrasian auctioneer.

    Your choice reveals only two things. First, you dont really understand either. Second, by going for the simplistic of the two, you dont really give a gnat's arse about justice.

    Look at you and your right wing support for regressivity. You again demonstrate your right wing credentials, including contempt for the poor .

    You also have chosen a woeful example. A Pigovian tax isn't used for smoking. Instead, we have seen the reality of these taxes: revenue raising such that other more visible taxes can be avoided. Ultimately they're used to increase the tax burden on the poor and reduce it on the rich. Again, this is Right Wing 101.

    Furthermore, due to addiction, we know that the demand effects haven't operated as assumed. Indeed, instead we have seen countries use a gradual slide towards prohibition (such as stopping smoking in any public place).
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2020
  16. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your childish refusal to engage with the facts is noted.
    Nope. Coase is about exchange, Pigou is about incentives.
    False on both counts.
    <yawn>
    <yawn>
    Justice is rewards commensurate with contributions and costs commensurate with deprivations. Pigovian taxes attempt to effect the latter. You hate them because like any socialist (or capitalist), you hate justice. Simple.
    What exactly do you erroneously imagine "right wing" and "regressivity" mean?
    Well, you know what familiarity breeds...

    I have spent enough time with poor people to know that while they are all victims of privilege, most are also in varying degrees foolish, greedy, disagreeable, profligate, dishonest, lazy and violent.
    Your claims continue to be reliably false.
    Huh?? There is hardly a tax that is more visible than the one on tobacco!
    Nonsense. There is a difference between consequences and intention.
    False.
    The prohibitions have mainly proceeded after the taxes have reduced smoking. Before that, the prohibitions would have been too politically risky.
     
  17. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    More pathetic one liners to hide from your inability to construct logical economic content. This also is a trait of right wingers! The Coase Theorem and the Pigovian tax are built on the exact same framework: both refer to externalities and therefore, in the case of negative examples, distinction between marginal private and marginal social cost. The only difference is that the tax solution refers to a government, who doesn't really care about those who pay the cost of the externality, simply imposes a tax of the identical value of the externality. We know that doesn't occur. Instead, the tax- like the pathetic smoking examples you tried to foolishly apply- just becomes about regressive revenue raising.
     
  18. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope. Coase ignores social costs that can't be propertized, like human health.
    Oh, is that some "Meeza hatesa gubmint!" nonsense from you? How special.
    No, you merely claim it doesn't.
    Flat wrong.
     
  19. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is cobblers! The Coase Theorem is understood using the exact same supply and demand analysis as the Pigovian tax. You're merely demonstrating that Econ 101 is beyond you.
     
  20. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope. Coase can't account for unpropertized social demand. You lose.
    :lol: You constantly make that claim, and constantly prove it is pure projection.
     
  21. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is a cretinous effort. The Pigovian tax is supply orientated. The Coase Theorem is both. Bit obvious really.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2020
  22. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Garbage.
    Obviously wrong.
     
  23. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No content? Gosh, its like you know nothing! The Pigovian tax refers to a supply side correction, apparently ensuring that the consumer/producer faces the true cost of their preference (but never compensates the loser). The Coase Theorem empowers the 'externality loser' and ensures that they do not lose.
     
  24. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Definitions:
    "British economist Arthur Pigou developed the concept of externalities. He argued that the government should intervene to correct them by taxing activities that harm the economy as a whole and subsidizing activities that help society as a whole.

    While the debate on (complex) issues involving Coase* and Pigou is..... informative (amongst and despite the hurling of abuse between you and Reiver), I see an inadequacy in your statement re justice, bolded above.

    I would say : Justice is rewards commensurate with contributions, in a system that guarantees above-poverty participation in the economy.

    *Re Coase (one definition):
    1. A Coase theorem states that when there is a disagreement about property rights, those parties concerned can find a way to come to a mutually beneficial outcome by means of bargaining or negotiating terms.

    2.the Coase theorem states that the most efficient solution to resolving interdependent uses of the environment, including pollution cases, is a bargaining process among relevant property holders.

    These Coase theorems look like a branch of microeconomics, to me, and of lesser concern, within the macroeconomic concerns of this thread - of a sovereign government enabled to issue debt-free fiat money, for specific policy proposals.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2020
  25. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks for the warning about your post.
    <yawn> Don't you ever get tired of disgracing yourself?
    Wrong. Both demand and supply are affected; that really IS Econ101.
    That is not its purpose, and it is cretinous to suggest that if a single policy does not accomplish every goal, it is no good.
    More puerile, anti-economic nonsense from you. The Coase Theorem does nothing for anyone because its premises are never remotely close to being satisfied, unlike the Pigovian ones.
     

Share This Page