MMT: overcoming the political divide.

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

  1. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    3,058
    Likes Received:
    401
    Trophy Points:
    83
    So sayeth the Anarchist Master. I see you are happy to communicate with your acolyte, but won't carry on a debate re the opposing substantive issues, eg in post #472......since you are "weary of discussing".

    And #474.

    Your real concern in all this is taxation. MMT offers the answer, and you STILL insist there is no alternative (TINA) to neoliberal orthodoxy, specifically, with its dogma that government must be excluded from money creation.

    That's a prime expample of zealotry right there.....
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2020
  2. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,069
    Likes Received:
    1,823
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you can only go for cliche? Monetarism, for example, didn't reduce the importance of the state. It was merely used to support big business and coerce rentier capitalism.

    Why do you think anarachists reject your right wing acceptance for these outcomes? Have a think.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2020
  3. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,322
    Likes Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    83
    That's just self-evidently false as a matter of objective fact. The state has a responsibility to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor. In order to do that, it also has the job of administering possession and use of the land within its sovereign territory. It didn't steal those things from others because no one ever had them before the state.
    Sure there is: the area of land over whose possession and use the state exercises sovereign authority. You are just factually incorrect.
    :lol:
     
  4. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,322
    Likes Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Yes, I can certainly picture you kneeling in a corner somewhere, rocking back and forth and giggling to yourself.
     
  5. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,322
    Likes Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Why are you trying to derail a discussion of monetary policy into an ad hominem $#!+-fest?

    Oh, and for an example of people who demand that others produce and toil on their behalf, you might want to check out the private commercial banksters who are privileged to create debt money de novo in order to charge others -- including government -- interest on it. Just sayin'.
     
  6. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,322
    Likes Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    83
    That is an absurd strawman.
    It is the state's JOB to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor. To do that, it must administer possession and use of the land within its sovereign authority. No one but the state is COMPETENT to do those things, which SOMEONE must do if we are to enjoy an economy above the hunter-gatherer or nomadic herder level.

    Now, please explain how that is a "quasi-religious belief" or attributes "divinity" to the state.
     
  7. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,069
    Likes Received:
    1,823
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Look at you maintaining the zero economic content! Its a shame that you think externalities are sufficient. It ensures that, in terms of environmentalism, you have nothing valuable to say. Accounts for the flamebaiting mind you...
     
  8. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,322
    Likes Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Look at you maintaining the zero factual content!
    No, it's a shame that you think it is necessary always to make $#!+ up about what I have plainly written.
    Environmentalism is an ideology, not a science, and one I find quite unpersuasive. There. That was more valuable than anything you've said on the subject.
    This, from you???
     
  9. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,069
    Likes Received:
    1,823
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Look at this. In your effort to flamebait, you actually informed me why you're reliant on simplistic externalities analysis. You just don't know any ecological economics. The overconsumption vs overpopulation debate won't be productive ;)
     
  10. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,322
    Likes Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    83
    There is no one on earth less entitled to accuse others of flamebaiting than you:
    See?
    Or phrenology. "Ecological economics" is anti-economic nonsense.
    Because both are anti-economic nonsense.
     
  11. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    3,058
    Likes Received:
    401
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Provided we all understand waste and toxic pollution need to be accounted as costs, and eliminated, in a sustainable economy.
     
  12. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,069
    Likes Received:
    1,823
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No content again . Genuine question: How can you critique it when it is composed of multiple political economy schools if thought, none of which you actually understand? Please reference your wikipedia source ;)
     
  13. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,322
    Likes Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Waste is just a product of such low value that it is discarded, so qua waste, it is not actually a separate cost. In some cases there may be a cost associated with disposing of it, such as city sanitation services, waste heat from a power plant, etc. Toxic pollution, by contrast, deprives people of what they would otherwise have -- normal access to whatever is being polluted -- so it is an abrogation of rights ("externality") that must rightly be compensated.
     
  14. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,069
    Likes Received:
    1,823
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The property rights analysis leads to the Coase Theorem, not to the Pigovian tax guff (which allows the abuse of rights to go unchallenged, focusing only on a hypothetical and simplistic view over overproduction and overconsumption)
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2020
  15. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,322
    Likes Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Same false claim again.
    Don't make me laugh.
    I don't have to understand unscientific twaddle like alchemy or ecological economics to critique it.
    <yawn>
     
  16. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,322
    Likes Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    83
    What property rights analysis? Like Coase, you seem to be under an erroneous impression that people's rights can rightly become other people's property. That must be why you consistently dismiss, justify and rationalize the forcible, uncompensated removal of people's rights to liberty and their conversion into the private property of the privileged, especially landowners.
    No, that's just more absurd and irrelevant nonsense from you. It has nothing to do with brainless, anti-economic gibberish like "overproduction" or "overconsumption."
     
  17. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,069
    Likes Received:
    1,823
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bluster! You cheer the Pigovian tax. That does not protect property rights. That only generates a marginal shift in outcome to hypothetically (assuming a government with perfect knowledge) to eliminate overconsumption/overproduction. This is Econ 101 stuff so no excuse! Its about ensuring marginal benefits are equated to marginal social costs.

    Crikey, its like pulling teeth!
     
  18. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,322
    Likes Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You should know by now that I am generally less than impressed with any property "rights" other than the right of the producer to property in the fruits of his labor. Pigovian taxes are more just and efficient than "Property, right or wrong," because they require people to make compensation for what they take from others.
    No, just more than no knowledge. Perhaps you are unable even to imagine such a condition.
    No, just to discourage specific production and consumption that inflicts costs on others.
    What's your excuse?
    No it's not. It's only about reducing total costs by requiring those who impose them to pay them. There's none of your anti-scientific zero-tolerance nonsense about it.
    Getting me to acquiesce in falsehoods? I should say so.
     
  19. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,069
    Likes Received:
    1,823
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your post was cretinous, but this was interesting. You've basically rejected property rights and therefore have no reference to exploitation. Your "evil" rant has no substance?
     
  20. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    3,058
    Likes Received:
    401
    Trophy Points:
    83
    So who should pay for coal plant scrubbers etc to remove toxic air-pollutants? Profits, or consumers? An even more important question in developing nations such as India and China.

    That's why a MMT regime would sensibly nationalize these coal plants, since for the state it's resources, not money, which are the chief concern.

    [Meantime even mainstream neoliberal rags like The Economist seem to be on board with the "CO2 hoax" as you call it (ie MSM are increasingly accepting AGW-CO2) as part of their post pandemic economic development plans; I certainly wouldn't want to invest in coal now, if the MSM are accepting the "CO2 hoax"].

    https://www.economist.com/news/2020/04/24/the-economists-coverage-of-climate-change
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2020
  21. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,322
    Likes Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Whoever is burning the coal.
    Consumers of whatever the coal burning produces.
    A power grid is a natural monopoly, so there is nothing to be gained from private competition. In fact, private power companies systematically charge more for power than public ones.
    The psychology of the market does not have a lot of respect for facts.
     
  22. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,322
    Likes Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Perhaps; but if so, it would nevertheless still have to be accounted incomparably more intelligent, interesting and insightful -- and honest -- than anything you have ever written.
    See?

    As you know, I haven't rejected property rights. You just dishonestly deleted the rest of my sentence to make it look like I said something I did not say. That kind of disingenuous, deceitful, and disgraceful conduct is not exactly unexpected from you, is it?
    Exploitation happens when people are forcibly placed in a disadvantageous position without just compensation. I've explained how that is effected by privilege, and especially invalid property "rights" in privilege. You just deflect and refuse to engage with that analysis, as exemplified by your post.
    What rant? I simply identified evil in institutional arrangements. You had to avoid engaging with that analysis, so you called it a rant. Simple. Calling clear, calm, grammatical English a "rant" to rationalize and justify your deflections from the facts is also not exactly unexpected from you, is it? You are of course free to take what I wrote and edit it to make it say something different -- and you did -- but that does not actually make what I wrote what you claim I wrote. See how that works?
     
  23. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,069
    Likes Received:
    1,823
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ramble ramble ramble! You're only concise when you flamebait ;) The problem you have is that the Coase Theorem does focus on property rights. In contrast, Pigovian tax doesn't. Indeed, its completely reliant on a benevolent all-knowing government. Your naivety on this is spectacular.
     
  24. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,322
    Likes Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Wrong again. That's not a problem I have. It's a problem Coase and his "theorem" have.
    No, that's just more of your absurd and anti-scientific zero-tolerance vomitus. We all know that what a wise and informed electorate could require a democratically responsible government to do is different from what actual governments do do. And speaking of doo-doo:
    Nothing is more naive than your belief that zero tolerance could be relevant.
     
  25. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,069
    Likes Received:
    1,823
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again no content. I've only referred to the reality. The Pigovian tax, which you support, makes no reference to property rights. The Coase Theorem, which you don't support, is focused on protecting property rights. What do you think this suggests about your stance? Have a think! Its obvious mind you.
     

Share This Page