Potemkin wrote:1] So do I. And my argument is of course highly simplified, but does not rest on the assumption that the rationing out of the social wealth is actually fair. It may or may not be; my argument only logically depends on the assumption that currency is a means of rationing the distribution of goods and services. Do you deny that this is the main function of currency?
2] Indeed. We call this ‘exploitation’, and it is endemic to the capitalist mode of production. In fact, capitalism requires it.
3] My argument is highly simplified; for example, I ignored the concept of ‘interest’. This does not affect the logical validity of my argument, however.
4] My argument actually implies the opposite - that the people who had their PPP loans forgiven are, in fact, freeloaders and moochers.
5] Correct. One of the main functions of government is, and has always been, to redistribute the social wealth. From the earliest times of the existence of governments, millennia ago, governments would tax their population, and spend the money on armies and navies to conquer their neighbours or defend themselves from being conquered by their neighbours. This is not inflationary, because the social wealth already existed. It is, if you like, confiscatory rather than inflationary.
6] …So you’re basically saying that no-one can use logical arguments in economics, ever?
6] Not really. I'm saying that every premise must be somehow based on reality and not just assumed to be true. We must not allow any false premises to slip into the proofs.
3] I don't like simplified arguments. This is how mainstream economists got to slip false premises into their theories. An example from math. Before Chaos theory was discovered, they simplified 2nd order equations and thought they were learning things. It turned out that the 2nd order terms were exactly where the true behavior of such systems was located. Simplifying the equations hit the true behavior.
2] So, if some are getting more value than they return and many, many others are getting far lass, then IMHO your argument fails to prove that forgiving debt turns people into bigger moochers than those getting 5 times their value. We tolerate the bigger moochers and come down on the little ones. IMHO, you and we should reverse that behavior.
4] MMTers would assert AFAIK, that instead of loans that were intended
to be forgiven, the Gov. should have just given grants in the 1st place. Either the Gov. or a bank just created the dollars out of thin air, so nobody lost anything they had before the transaction. Some did get things they didn't have before the transaction.
. . a] MS econ. claims to have proven the money supply theory of inflation, however, it used false premises to prove it, so the proof is not valid.
. . b] MMTers claim to have proven that Gov. deficit spending is only inflationary when all the labor in the nation is being used somehow, and also, all of the real resources available that will be needed by the deficit spending are somehow also already being used. I don't claim to have understood the proofs. They are in detailed peer reviewed papers that are over my head. MMTers claim that they used no false premises. I can't confirm that claim. OTO, I have never
seen an attack on MMT by a MS economists that proved that MMT had used a false premise. I have seen a few that asserted that MMT uses false premises, but it alwat took a form like Truth to Power asserting that CO2 doesn't cause the air to heat. We discount TtP's assertions because he fails to back them up. I do the same to MS Economists' assertions.