- Joined
- Jul 31, 2010
- Messages
- 3,595
- Reaction score
- 1,259
- Location
- Kentucky
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
You just said the same thing I did, please stop typing.
You're saying that the federal government can acquire goods by printing money and that this doesn't harm anyone, which is a load of manure.
Describe what you mean by useful, and then I could explain if it is useful or not.
The value of the dollar is determined just as much by production as it is by currency management. And when you add money to banks accounts of those who consume, more than save, it increases production.
Then apparently you're not in fact arguing for a jobs guarantee, because you described a contract preceding the terms, whereas I described the terms preceding the establishment of the contract.
Even if you're one of those who thinks printing money does not result in inflation, there's still the issue of the NAIRU (non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment), or the rate of unemployment below which inflation rises. How does maxing out employment (even if artificially) NOT cause inflation?
In the end, for the middle class and savers, the effect is the same, and they bear the brunt of loose fiscal and monetary policies.
I don't think I'm misunderstanding his position at all.Those who consider a job to be something you're entitled to have provided to you do. Such as those referenced in the OP.
And while I disagree with ernst barkmann on many things, that's what he's saying. You're misunderstanding him, and you're trying to smear libertarians with the misunderstanding.
You mean my refusal to accept your interpretation of it, don't you? Generally speaking the courts are on my side, so there are many jurists who agree with me even if you don't.my friend your attempts to make people look bad, or get your jollies visiting this forum, does not bother me, i have already witness you inability to understand the constitution, rights privileges.
I don't think I'm misunderstanding his position at all.
As for the Libertarian position, well, it's about as wide as the Atlantic from what I've seen. I have no doubt that most Libertarians do not see a job the same way ernst barkmann does. IMO, he gives your cause a bad name - but, hey, if you want to apologize for him that's your prerogative.
I have no idea why you think I'm being dishonest.I do not know why you need to be dishonest here. I'm not even going to bother to correct you, because it's all there above and I have no patience for another go-around.
NAIRU is a made up myth, there is no historical data to back up it happens.
Well then tell me what in MMT this has to do with it, lol. Or point out an MMT theory that is not backed by historical data, lol. I will be waiting.I could as easily say MMT has no substantial historical data to suggest it's sustainable.
I suspect you're just balking at whatever doesn't support your theory of sovereign central bank invincibility.
Well then tell me what in MMT this has to do with it, lol. Or point out an MMT theory that is not backed by historical data, lol. I will be waiting.
Don't the principles of MMT make up your arsenal? I figured that's why you would balk at the idea that printing money (or as you put it, adding zeroes to people's bank accounts) causes inflation.
Considering the Phillips curve, how is it that universal employment wouldn't lead to inflation?
Actually "inflation" is considered the principal risk to government printing, so once full employment is reached inflation concerns then become the underlying issue, but it is not an issue until we hit full employment. The tenet of MMT is that we would rather have inflation concerns, than unemployment concerns, because unemployment is much more harmful than inflation ever could be.
I hate to refer you to reading, but this is a great piece by Bill Mitchell that will help you further understand that MMT doesn't disregard inflation, in fact we fear it just as much.
I wonder what the hell I have been writing all these years | Bill Mitchell – billy blog
If there is one thing MMT does understand it is inflation. You should try adding substance to a post and not just type out random words.MMTer's do not understand the root causes of inflation. Full employment is a laudable goal, but it's not realistic...
Okay, we'll disagree on when interpersonal violence is justified.
I will continue to hold that the ONLY justification for violence is in RESPONSE to someone acting to uninvitedly affect another's person or property. You may continue to hold that interpersonal violence is okay to use against those who have harmed no one.
I speed read the first 4 pages and the last 2.
Does anyone actually know what this Act is? Does anyone actually know what this Act stands for? Or are they just title readers who can't think and join a party that doesn't require you to?
"The Right to Work" is a UNION bill. It doesn't simply mean "the right to work" ....................I swear I'm not friends with these Americans...
The **** you talking about?
I think you need to go back and read the OP. It sounds like you missed something.You didn't know "Right To Work" was a Union movement?!?
Do you have a right to a job now? Likely not. Should you have a right to a job? Absolutely.
You do have the economic right to a job right now, it's called self employment.
What you do NOT have the right to do is force someone else to purchase your labor if they do not want to.
We're not talking disabled people. So who can't do some work themselves? Can you clean houses? Can you cut grass/landscape? What's unrealistic about it? My mother cleaned houses for a few years, you think its beneath you?No, I'm quite sure I was thinking of something else. Also, self-employment isn't something that realistically exist as an option for everyone.
You assume the best means to acquiring work for everyone is to force employment on private enterprises? That's not what I was thinking at all.
You know, I hadn't thought of it that way. The poor and jobless can just fight amongst each other to find someone who doesn't cut their own grass.*snip*
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?