Would this solution work to control banks lending to people & corps and so creating *too much* cash? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Everything from personal credit card debt to government borrowing debt.

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

#14965690
@Crantag,
Please respond to my last reply to you.
Is it just that I can't respond on your high level of knowledge about academic economics? And instead I assert that what is in the mind s of the people and politicians (when they talk to the voters) is what matters and not what academic economists believe in their ivory towers.
#14982417
Truth To Power wrote:No, mainstream theory confirms that taxation of a factor in fixed supply, like land, is non-distortionary up to the full rental value.

That is a one line post.
And like many such post, it is hard to understand your point.
So, it seems you're saying that some taxes are non-distortionary. Specifically those that tax things that exist in a fixed supply. Are there any others than land? I don't think so, but I could be wrong.

Not that I give a rats ass about any conclusion of "mainstream" economists.
As I see it right now there are 3 main economic theories.
MMT, Neo-liberalism, and Keynesian economics are the 3. Which one is mainstream now?
#14992340
Steve_American wrote:So, it seems you're saying that some taxes are non-distortionary. Specifically those that tax things that exist in a fixed supply. Are there any others than land? I don't think so, but I could be wrong.

There are some. Broadcast spectrum, taxi medallions, etc.
MMT, Neo-liberalism, and Keynesian economics are the 3. Which one is mainstream now?

What you call neo-liberalism is supported by mainstream neoclassical economics.
#15090786
Truth To Power wrote:There are some. Broadcast spectrum, taxi medallions, etc.

What you call neo-liberalism is supported by mainstream neoclassical economics.

With all due respect.
Every theory from before 1971 when the US took the whole world off the gold standard now needs to be reevaluated. If it assumed the gold standard anywhere, directly or implicitly, then the conclusions would not follow and so their proofs no longer prove things about the world's economies *now*.

Therefore, it doesn't matter that Neo-liberalism is based on a pre-1971 theory.

This is the key thing. Every theory that doesn't explicitly start from the world being off the gold standard will always be wrong.
The EU & eurozone are sort of back on a sort of a gold standard so they can still use the old theories to some extent.

The rest of the world is off the gold standard and this changes some important things. Like a theory that says that "someday" it will be necessary to change US bond IOUs into cash IOUs (dollars) is missing the point that bonds and cash are both IOUs. The only difference now is that the Gov. pays interest on bonds and not on cash. Well, unless the Fed. Res. is paying some interest on bank Reserves.
. . . So, that economic theory *must carefully* explain *why* changing the kind of IUOs the people are holding will make a difference. IF the theory does not do this we should assume the theory is using smoke and mirrors to try to confuse you. IMHO, every economists who makes the claim that someday the US's bonds must be paid off is just ignoring those facts and hoping you don't realize what they are doing.
. . . This is because all money is now IOUs and if people don't want to hold bonds or cash=dollars they only have the option of finding someone who has a *thing* and is willing to take cash for it.
. . . If this became common it would mean that the Gov. has done something stupid in that the people have no use for or confidence in money. The only solution after the Gov. has been this stupid is to raise taxes. Mainstream economists will say, "See there may be a huge tax increase someday." They ignore all the income everyone has had leading up to that tax increase. It is not therefore clear that you as an individual would lose more (because of the tax increase) than you gained (in income before the tax increase). Besides there is a good chance you will be dead before that 'someday' arrives.

Right now we have the covid-19 crisis. I am making a strong claim that deficit spending now will be good for fighting the disease. It will help with treatments, cures, etc.; and it will help keep poor people alive by feeding them. And once the dollars find a saver who wants to save them they will not cause inflation.
. . . OTOH, some inflation will be a result of covid-19 even if the Gov. didn't save the poor. There has been a reduction in production, this will cause a supply shortage after a cure is found, and supply shortages have been the only cause of all episodes of hyperinflation since 1900. So, while hyperinflation is not likely some inflation is likely. Where 'inflation' means a wide spread rise in prices whether or not it is sustained.

"sweating" …… you left out the "sw[…]

Your antisemitism is showing because of the big[…]

UPDATE: The officers involved have just been fire[…]

It looks like the ones really at risk are the el[…]