Xero's Rule

[Xerographica]

First you say that the government would not spend...

MMT actually doesn't say that government should spend but that they give the private sector more ability to spend via less taxation and a job guarantee bill so that private citizens can vote with their dollars.

Again you fail to understand what my message is and actually argue against yourself.

But here's your response when I asked you whether you want to get rid of the government's printing press...

No, that would be silly, there would be no more currency.

So you don't want the government spending money...but you want the government to keep its money making machine. You don't want me to spend money...but you don't want me to chop down my tree which magically has money growing from it.

If you don't want the government spending money...then what does the government do with the money that it prints? We need currency...so how does the currency get from the government to us without the government spending money?

 

[Xerographica]

Where did you get that from? I'm pretty sure he was suggesting less taxation.

First he said that the government would not spend...

MMT actually doesn't say that government should spend but that they give the private sector more ability to spend via less taxation and a job guarantee bill so that private citizens can vote with their dollars.

Again you fail to understand what my message is and actually argue against yourself.

But here's his response when I asked him whether he wants to get rid of the government's printing press...

No, that would be silly, there would be no more currency.

So he doesn't want the government spending money...but he wants the government to keep its money making machine. He doesn't want me to spend money...but he doesn't want me to chop down my tree which magically has money growing from it.

If he doesn't want the government spending money...then what does the government do with the money that it prints? We need currency...so how does the currency get from the government to us without the government spending money?

You don't want less taxation?

Our current system is based on the assumption that congresspeople are omniscient...True/False.

 

[Xerographica]

there is no such thing as limited resources, that's a lie. there is no limit to our ability to resolve technological problems

What's the proper scope of government and why?

 

[AngryOldGuy]

Government —Ayn Rand Lexicon

 

[Xerographica]

Government —Ayn*Rand Lexicon

Ok, so the government should only provide police, defense and courts. So from your perspective...congress can gather enough information to know the optimal provision of police, defense and courts...but they can't gather enough information to know the optimal provision of milk. Is this correct?

 

[imagep]

First he said that the government would not spend...

Thats not what I read. Maybe I missed something, I usually do.

Our current system is based on the assumption that congresspeople are omniscient...True/False.

False. Our current system is based upon the assumption that the average person on the street either doesn't have the time or the skills to become an expert on every important issue that faces our country. So we elect individuals to represent ourselves in congress, and pay them to become knowledgeable about those issues, and trust that they will make better decisions, or at least better informed decisions, than the typical uninformed citizen would. And we established a framework (the constitution) which sets rules and guidelines and procedures to create a functional system which establishes how our rules and laws and decisions are made.

Thats how a representative democracy works within a republic framework. Did you never take civics or government in high school?

I have no expectation that our congress people are omniscient, only that they typically make better informed decisions concerning governmental policy and complicated national/state/local issues than the average idiot on the street. I trust the individual and the family only to make decisions for themselves, and with no expectation that individual decisions made by individuals and families to benefit the individual and family unit, has the best possible result on the aggregate population.

 

[imagep]

What's the proper scope of government and why?

It's whatever the rulers chose it to be. If the dictator or king decides that government exists to further his every whim and preference, then that's what it is. If the government is a democracy or some form of democracy, then it's scope is whatever those who chose to vote want it to be. If we chose a nanny state, and if that is what makes us happy, then thats the scope of government. If we chose a more limited government, then thats the "proper scope". Someone once said that "the people get the government that they deserve", and I pretty much agree with that.

 

[Xerographica]

False. Our current system is based upon the assumption that the average person on the street either doesn't have the time or the skills to become an expert on every important issue that faces our country. So we elect individuals to represent ourselves in congress, and pay them to become knowledgeable about those issues, and trust that they will make better decisions, or at least better informed decisions, than the typical uninformed citizen would. And we established a framework (the constitution) which sets rules and guidelines and procedures to create a functional system which establishes how our rules and laws and decisions are made.

Thats how a representative democracy works within a republic framework. Did you never take civics or government in high school?

I have no expectation that our congress people are omniscient, only that they typically make better informed decisions concerning governmental policy and complicated national/state/local issues than the average idiot on the street. I trust the individual and the family only to make decisions for themselves, and with no expectation that individual decisions made by individuals and families to benefit the individual and family unit, has the best possible result on the aggregate population.

Of course I took government in high school. But then I studied public finance.

The Nobel Prize winning liberal economist Paul Samuelson provided the definitive economic justification for government...The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure. It's been cited over 5,000 times. His argument basically boils down to the free-rider problem. It's a really reasonable argument. Of course it's true that we all want the most bang for our buck. Everybody wants something for nothing. Everybody wants a free lunch. The problem is though that Samuelson "conveniently" assumes that government planners are omniscient. I'm really not making this up...

Essential though the efficiency model of public goods [Samuelson] is as a theoretical construct, standing by itself it has little practical use. The omniscient referee does not exist and the problem of preference revelation must be addressed. - Richard A. Musgrave, The Nature of the Fiscal State

Determining the efficient level of public goods requires knowing consumer preferences. That knowledge is often assumed as given in theoretical models of optimal provision [Samuelson], but obtaining it is a major challenge when it comes to actual policy. - Richard A. Musgrave, Peggy Musgrave, Providing Global Public Goods

Our current system has absolutely nothing to do with how little the person on the street knows or can know or wants to know. On the contrary...public finance economists largely agree that it's essential to determine what the person on the street values. And that could easily be determined by allowing taxpayers to shop for themselves in the public sector. The result would be the optimal (efficient) provision of public goods.

Now, the question is...how many passages do I have to share with you before you agree that our current system is based on the assumption that congresspeople are omniscient?

 

[Xerographica]

It's whatever the rulers chose it to be. If the dictator or king decides that government exists to further his every whim and preference, then that's what it is. If the government is a democracy or some form of democracy, then it's scope is whatever those who chose to vote want it to be. If we chose a nanny state, and if that is what makes us happy, then thats the scope of government. If we chose a more limited government, then thats the "proper scope". Someone once said that "the people get the government that they deserve", and I pretty much agree with that.

The government should do what taxpayers are willing to pay it to do...no more...and no less.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

First you say that the government would not spend...

No I said that MMT doesn't advocate spending, they just describe exactly how our system works.


But here's your response when I asked you whether you want to get rid of the government's printing press...

Printing money vs/ spending money are two different things.

 

[Xerographica]

Printing money vs/ spending money are two different things.

I know that printing money is different than spending money. My question was what exactly happens to the money once it's printed. The government just printed $50 million dollars...then what? What happens next?

 

[AngryOldGuy]

What happens next?

The currency is devalued?

 

[Xerographica]

The currency is devalued?

You're missing a step...

Step 1: Print money
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Currency devaluation

 

[AngryOldGuy]

issue debt
which is what we will do once more at the end of this month?

 

[Xerographica]

issue debt
which is what we will do once more at the end of this month?

Once the government prints the money...then it goes out and spends it. And the problem with the government spending money is that they don't know the values of taxpayers. If they could somehow accurately divine the values of taxpayers...then they would be omniscient...and there would be no need for us to shop for ourselves in the private sector. But congresspeople are not omniscient...and our values are important...which is why it's essential for taxpayers to be able to shop for themselves in both the private and public sectors.

So the question isn't what does the American public think about striking Syria...it's how much does the American public value striking Syria...given the alternative uses of their tax dollars. The only way to find out would be to allow taxpayers to shop for themselves in the public sector.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

I know that printing money is different than spending money. My question was what exactly happens to the money once it's printed. The government just printed $50 million dollars...then what? What happens next?

I don't advocate for printing money, but for spending money. Printing money only goes to those who have the capital and lending ability to obtain it.

 

[Xerographica]

I don't advocate for printing money, but for spending money. Printing money only goes to those who have the capital and lending ability to obtain it.

MMT actually doesn't say that government should spend but that they give the private sector more ability to spend via less taxation and a job guarantee bill so that private citizens can vote with their dollars.

Again you fail to understand what my message is and actually argue against yourself.

I fail to understand your message because you don't even know what your message is. The government prints money and then gives the money to private banks? That's all the government does with the money it prints? It doesn't give any money to congress to pay their salaries? Congresspeople just volunteer their time now?