Hahaha, you don't claim to know anything and rebel at being called immodest and yet you'd punch somebody in the throat for saying they'd vote a certain way. My my!
If you vote with the intention of violating my rights, you have little call to argue if I violate yours in return. Or do you think it's ok to violate my rights, as long as someone else is doing the violating at your behest? Would it be better if I hired someone to punch you a throat, as long as he had a suitable public title such as, say, senator?
In a democracy folk vote and the do so on the basis that what they are voting for is both legal and good for some reason or another. Others may feel differently and vote another way, thinking that the better way is not to have such a law. Those who feel that a vote that wins has violated their rights can appeal the matter to the courts where they will be vindicated or not. If they are not vindicated their assertion that rights were violated is legally false. At no point in any of this is there any justification to punch anybody else in the nose. That is a definite violation of somebody else's rights.
You have once again become completely irrational and are arguing theoretical nonsense. At no point in the life of a law can it ever violate your rights. It becomes legal when it passes and is only illegal exactly when it is reversed and does not apply.
You have once again become completely irrational and are arguing theoretical nonsense. At no point in the life of a law can it ever violate your rights. It becomes legal when it passes and is only illegal exactly when it is reversed and does not apply.
No, you are arguing that our system works the way it is supposed to work. Your ignorance of reality is obvious to any non-totalitarian: "At no point in the life of a law can it ever violate your rights." Really? Doesn't this directly contradict what you said in your first paragraph, about a court stating that a law violates someone's rights? It only violates those rights if a course says so? So the whole bit about inalienable rights is false? I guess Guantanamo is fine and dandy with you, since those guys haven't settled anything in court, never mind the fact that they have been legally barred from going to court. I guess a law ordering all clown avatars to Gitmo would also be fine with you - it must be the will of the people. You are so enamored with government that you really believe what you're saying - that our rights are whatever government deems them to be at a given time. But I am the one arguing irrationally with "theoretical nonsense?" Really?
Great article - thanks for posting the link. From the article, Greece is beyond screwed. Interesting point the author makes, about the basic breakdown of civic life; the author suggests the Greek people no longer think of the "common good" at all, and are only looking out for their own best interests. Once a democracy reaches that point (and it's where the US is headed), it's headed for disaster.
CycloWizard: No, you are arguing that our system works the way it is supposed to work.
M: No, I said how it works in theory and what the practical implications are.
CW: Your ignorance of reality is obvious to any non-totalitarian: "At no point in the life of a law can it ever violate your rights." Really? Doesn't this directly contradict what you said in your first paragraph, about a court stating that a law violates someone's rights? It only violates those rights if a course says so? So the whole bit about inalienable rights is false?
M: I was careful to say that no law can legally violate your rights because the law is what is legal. If it is legal for me to kill you I can kill you and suffer no legal consequence. If the law is changed I won't be able to kill you after that point, but I can't be prosecuted for killing you in the past when it was legal to do so. Law is a substitute for justice, an approximation and search for real truth. It is an attempt to act on earth as we are supposed to act in heaven as it were. It is a matter of judgment and evolves and improves, hopefully, as we do. Some say the presumption of inalienable rights is a fiction. Some think they derive from God. I happen to think they adhere to our being and what we are when we really are.
CW: I guess Guantanamo is fine and dandy with you, since those guys haven't settled anything in court, never mind the fact that they have been legally barred from going to court. I guess a law ordering all clown avatars to Gitmo would also be fine with you - it must be the will of the people. You are so enamored with government that you really believe what you're saying - that our rights are whatever government deems them to be at a given time. But I am the one arguing irrationally with "theoretical nonsense?" Really?
Gitmo is an atrocity caused by the coward George Bush who had no faith whatsoever in inalienable rights or the law. He started a vicious brain dead illegal war in Iraq for the sake of politics and the certainty it would save his failing ass. In the process he fucked us all and now we are fucked. We have all these folk who need to go free according to law so they can get back into action and kill more Americans. Obama is not also fucked because of Bush because he can't let those assholes free and survive politically. Enough folk would rather their politicians be swine then risk their lives for the sake of justice or at least I believe that's what politicians think.
You know perfectly well what your options are. If your rights are being violated you go to court. If your rights are still being violated and you refuse to obey the court you will need to start a revolution at the ballot box. Failing that you will have to seek the violent overthrow of the government and punch them in the throat and to seek the violent overthrow of the government is illegal.
To be or not to be, that is always and forever the question, no? But if you decide to be, what does it mean. Is it Paul Kersey or the Buddha?
M: No, I said how it works in theory and what the practical implications are.
CW: Your ignorance of reality is obvious to any non-totalitarian: "At no point in the life of a law can it ever violate your rights." Really? Doesn't this directly contradict what you said in your first paragraph, about a court stating that a law violates someone's rights? It only violates those rights if a course says so? So the whole bit about inalienable rights is false?
M: I was careful to say that no law can legally violate your rights because the law is what is legal. If it is legal for me to kill you I can kill you and suffer no legal consequence. If the law is changed I won't be able to kill you after that point, but I can't be prosecuted for killing you in the past when it was legal to do so. Law is a substitute for justice, an approximation and search for real truth. It is an attempt to act on earth as we are supposed to act in heaven as it were. It is a matter of judgment and evolves and improves, hopefully, as we do. Some say the presumption of inalienable rights is a fiction. Some think they derive from God. I happen to think they adhere to our being and what we are when we really are.
CW: I guess Guantanamo is fine and dandy with you, since those guys haven't settled anything in court, never mind the fact that they have been legally barred from going to court. I guess a law ordering all clown avatars to Gitmo would also be fine with you - it must be the will of the people. You are so enamored with government that you really believe what you're saying - that our rights are whatever government deems them to be at a given time. But I am the one arguing irrationally with "theoretical nonsense?" Really?
Gitmo is an atrocity caused by the coward George Bush who had no faith whatsoever in inalienable rights or the law. He started a vicious brain dead illegal war in Iraq for the sake of politics and the certainty it would save his failing ass. In the process he fucked us all and now we are fucked. We have all these folk who need to go free according to law so they can get back into action and kill more Americans. Obama is not also fucked because of Bush because he can't let those assholes free and survive politically. Enough folk would rather their politicians be swine then risk their lives for the sake of justice or at least I believe that's what politicians think.
You know perfectly well what your options are. If your rights are being violated you go to court. If your rights are still being violated and you refuse to obey the court you will need to start a revolution at the ballot box. Failing that you will have to seek the violent overthrow of the government and punch them in the throat and to seek the violent overthrow of the government is illegal.
To be or not to be, that is always and forever the question, no? But if you decide to be, what does it mean. Is it Paul Kersey or the Buddha?
You are confounding what is legal with rights. Laws infringe on rights all the time. Guantanamo is just such a case. Passing laws which violate rights is routine now. Executive orders which destroy rights are equally as common. In both cases, limitations on the big three rights (life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, AKA property) are in principle totally disallowed. Unfortunately, these three are usurped all the time (again, Gitmo is an example). When you pass a law or give an order which violates these three, the person whose rights are violated often has no recourse because you have removed their means of redressing the problem with the law/order in question. If congress passed a law stating that no challenges to the constitutionality of any law may be made, then your system breaks down.
I love this thread...
Greece had 1 govt employee for every 2 citizens.
The US has 1 govt employee per 11...
Even in direct comparison over the issue you are trying to connect, they arent even similar.
And it just gets further and further apart the more you evaluate the situation.
Ugh, i know you guys can't be reached, but come on. Pick your battles.
Greece had 1 govt employee for every 2 citizens.
The US has 1 govt employee per 11...
Even in direct comparison over the issue you are trying to connect, they arent even similar.
And it just gets further and further apart the more you evaluate the situation.
Ugh, i know you guys can't be reached, but come on. Pick your battles.
I never said they were the same, but you've already demonstrated that you're not reading my posts. Whether that's because you're illiterate or simply content in your ignorance is something only you know. However, for the sake of tradition, I'll restate what I stated in the OP: the US is headed in a direction towards where Greece is now, so perhaps we should take note of those who have gone before us down a path that leads to ruin. Government is by far the largest (if not the only) growth sector in our economy. The ratio of public
rivate employees is changing at a very high rate. We're not there yet, but it is where we're headed.CycloWizard: You are confounding what is legal with rights.
M: There was no confounding what is legal with rights. I was very clear.
CW: Laws infringe on rights all the time.
M: That is true, but no infringement is acknowledged until the courts say so. All infringements of rights that will be addressed in the future are now completely legal and no infringement is acknowledge to exist or will be until the law is declared unconstitutional.
CW: Guantanamo is just such a case. Passing laws which violate rights is routine now. Executive orders which destroy rights are equally as common. In both cases, limitations on the big three rights (life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, AKA property) are in principle totally disallowed. Unfortunately, these three are usurped all the time (again, Gitmo is an example). When you pass a law or give an order which violates these three, the person whose rights are violated often has no recourse because you have removed their means of redressing the problem with the law/order in question.
M: That is so. I just told you that. Bush fucked us at Gitmo and by using torture on guilty people. He violated the law and should be in jail. He started an illegal war. Bush punches people in the throat.
He handed Obama the following option...free the killers who were tortured so they can kill again, the constitutional thing to do, or ignore the constitution and prevent them from killing more people, the illegal thing to do. Obama is going to punch them in the throat and deny their rights, for his political wellbeing and for the safety of our soldiers. He is going to put himself above the law and above the Constitution and violate both because it's the right thing to do. It's a terrible mess. He is also going to pay no attention to real justice. He's not going to throw Bush in prison. Some Presidents break the law because they are assholes and some because it makes sense. Job one for Obama is protecting the American people.
CW: If congress passed a law stating that no challenges to the constitutionality of any law may be made, then your system breaks down.
M: No it doesn't. Such a law would be declared unconstitutional immediately. And it would be 9-0 as even the five assholes would agree to that.
M: There was no confounding what is legal with rights. I was very clear.
CW: Laws infringe on rights all the time.
M: That is true, but no infringement is acknowledged until the courts say so. All infringements of rights that will be addressed in the future are now completely legal and no infringement is acknowledge to exist or will be until the law is declared unconstitutional.
CW: Guantanamo is just such a case. Passing laws which violate rights is routine now. Executive orders which destroy rights are equally as common. In both cases, limitations on the big three rights (life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, AKA property) are in principle totally disallowed. Unfortunately, these three are usurped all the time (again, Gitmo is an example). When you pass a law or give an order which violates these three, the person whose rights are violated often has no recourse because you have removed their means of redressing the problem with the law/order in question.
M: That is so. I just told you that. Bush fucked us at Gitmo and by using torture on guilty people. He violated the law and should be in jail. He started an illegal war. Bush punches people in the throat.
He handed Obama the following option...free the killers who were tortured so they can kill again, the constitutional thing to do, or ignore the constitution and prevent them from killing more people, the illegal thing to do. Obama is going to punch them in the throat and deny their rights, for his political wellbeing and for the safety of our soldiers. He is going to put himself above the law and above the Constitution and violate both because it's the right thing to do. It's a terrible mess. He is also going to pay no attention to real justice. He's not going to throw Bush in prison. Some Presidents break the law because they are assholes and some because it makes sense. Job one for Obama is protecting the American people.
CW: If congress passed a law stating that no challenges to the constitutionality of any law may be made, then your system breaks down.
M: No it doesn't. Such a law would be declared unconstitutional immediately. And it would be 9-0 as even the five assholes would agree to that.
M: That is true, but no infringement is acknowledged until the courts say so. All infringements of rights that will be addressed in the future are now completely legal and no infringement is acknowledge to exist or will be until the law is declared unconstitutional.
CW: So you are of the opinion that our rights are given to us by the government? Whether or not it is acknowledged has nothing to do with whether or not it's an infringement.
M: That is so. I just told you that. Bush fucked us at Gitmo and by using torture on guilty people. He violated the law and should be in jail. He started an illegal war. Bush punches people in the throat.
He handed Obama the following option...free the killers who were tortured so they can kill again, the constitutional thing to do, or ignore the constitution and prevent them from killing more people, the illegal thing to do. Obama is going to punch them in the throat and deny their rights, for his political wellbeing and for the safety of our soldiers. He is going to put himself above the law and above the Constitution and violate both because it's the right thing to do. It's a terrible mess. He is also going to pay no attention to real justice. He's not going to throw Bush in prison. Some Presidents break the law because they are assholes and some because it makes sense. Job one for Obama is protecting the American people.
CW: Neither of them has any interest in justice or doing what was right. Unfortunately, neither is the UN or anyone else who could actually do anything about it. I'm not assigning blame, only using it as an example to demonstrate why your approach is faulty: government can and does abuse its power and remove your rights. You simply have enough faith in the powers that be that they won't overstep them to the point where you are no longer able to challenge in a court of law. Your faith is misplaced as this has already been done, albeit on a bunch of people no one cares about. This is merely a trial run like experimenting on rats before moving on to humans, at least in the eyes of the people doing the experiments.
M: No it doesn't. Such a law would be declared unconstitutional immediately. And it would be 9-0 as even the five assholes would agree to that.
CW: But our system doesn't allow any such declaration of unconstitutionality. It would take well over a year for any suit against such a law to make its way to the USSC, where it would hopefully be overturned. Since you would be unable to bring such a suit without breaking the law, you could be imprisoned (or worse) in the meanwhile, assuming the suit was somehow allowed to continue. And, while I agree in hoping that it would be overturned, I don't have nearly the certainty that you do.
CW: So you are of the opinion that our rights are given to us by the government? Whether or not it is acknowledged has nothing to do with whether or not it's an infringement.
M: That is so. I just told you that. Bush fucked us at Gitmo and by using torture on guilty people. He violated the law and should be in jail. He started an illegal war. Bush punches people in the throat.
He handed Obama the following option...free the killers who were tortured so they can kill again, the constitutional thing to do, or ignore the constitution and prevent them from killing more people, the illegal thing to do. Obama is going to punch them in the throat and deny their rights, for his political wellbeing and for the safety of our soldiers. He is going to put himself above the law and above the Constitution and violate both because it's the right thing to do. It's a terrible mess. He is also going to pay no attention to real justice. He's not going to throw Bush in prison. Some Presidents break the law because they are assholes and some because it makes sense. Job one for Obama is protecting the American people.
CW: Neither of them has any interest in justice or doing what was right. Unfortunately, neither is the UN or anyone else who could actually do anything about it. I'm not assigning blame, only using it as an example to demonstrate why your approach is faulty: government can and does abuse its power and remove your rights. You simply have enough faith in the powers that be that they won't overstep them to the point where you are no longer able to challenge in a court of law. Your faith is misplaced as this has already been done, albeit on a bunch of people no one cares about. This is merely a trial run like experimenting on rats before moving on to humans, at least in the eyes of the people doing the experiments.
M: No it doesn't. Such a law would be declared unconstitutional immediately. And it would be 9-0 as even the five assholes would agree to that.
CW: But our system doesn't allow any such declaration of unconstitutionality. It would take well over a year for any suit against such a law to make its way to the USSC, where it would hopefully be overturned. Since you would be unable to bring such a suit without breaking the law, you could be imprisoned (or worse) in the meanwhile, assuming the suit was somehow allowed to continue. And, while I agree in hoping that it would be overturned, I don't have nearly the certainty that you do.
CW: Neither of them has any interest in justice or doing what was right. Unfortunately, neither is the UN or anyone else who could actually do anything about it.
M: Actually, neither of us can say what motivates another person. We infer from what motivates us.
CW: I'm not assigning blame, only using it as an example to demonstrate why your approach is faulty: government can and does abuse its power and remove your rights.
M: I am not giving you an approach. I am saying how things are from my viewpoint. If faults exist they are faults in the way reality is if my viewpoint is correct. If not then I am just wrong.
CW: You simply have enough faith in the powers that be that they won't overstep them to the point where you are no longer able to challenge in a court of law.
M: You could call my point of view one of faith. I could call yours one of paranoia. We seem to react differently to the same set of facts.
CW: Your faith is misplaced as this has already been done, albeit on a bunch of people no one cares about.
M: I this will be the third time I agree, I think. It is what I called being fucked by Bush. He did it and Obama can't undo it for the reasons I gave, in my opinion. But time hasn't stopped. The courts may force Obama to do something. Do you see the magic 5 voting to allow tortured Al Quaeda killers go because their constitutional rights were violated, or more exactly because we violated our own laws in the way we handled them? I don't think so. But if so I think Obama would be forced to comply. Then the hate of the American people would fall on the Activist judges on the SC. Laws may be enacted that makes torture by the government even more illegal than it already is. In short, the story isn't over, and the resilience and self correcting magic of our system hasn't run full course. If I don't actually have greater faith, I think I have greater perspective.
CW: This is merely a trial run like experimenting on rats before moving on to humans, at least in the eyes of the people doing the experiments.
M: A very paranoid statement in my opinion. Not everybody is George Bush, and even he, I believe, was doing what he thought was the right thing to protect the country. He was, however, a pessimist, and didn't believe in the rule of law. He seized the one ring of power. All I see in Obama is a refusal to be fucked by the fucker by adding tragedy to monstrous error.
M: No it doesn't. Such a law would be declared unconstitutional immediately. And it would be 9-0 as even the five assholes would agree to that.
CW: But our system doesn't allow any such declaration of unconstitutionality. It would take well over a year for any suit against such a law to make its way to the USSC, where it would hopefully be overturned.
M: I do not know enough to answer this with certain and I don't want really to go see if I can find out what would be the real answer. I would think the court would act immediately since such a law would imply that the Supreme court is out of a job. It would be an instant negation of the third branch of government. I don't think there's the slightest chance that such a bill will be proposed, much less passed. We do have martial law however.
CW: Since you would be unable to bring such a suit without breaking the law, you could be imprisoned (or worse) in the meanwhile, assuming the suit was somehow allowed to continue. And, while I agree in hoping that it would be overturned, I don't have nearly the certainty that you do.
M: You should ask which came first, the desire to punch people in the throat or the fear the rule of law is ineffective. Too much faith in ones own rectitude and too little faith in the rectitude of others is how you spell vigilante or Unabomber. To properly manage the insanity of the world you will have to suffer on the cross. You will have to have some feeling for the poor fools who know not what they do.
The ego demands to be free and rages against a cage. But the ego is the cage. Your rights are inalienable and can never be taken. You know this by being free inwardly.
M: Actually, neither of us can say what motivates another person. We infer from what motivates us.
CW: I'm not assigning blame, only using it as an example to demonstrate why your approach is faulty: government can and does abuse its power and remove your rights.
M: I am not giving you an approach. I am saying how things are from my viewpoint. If faults exist they are faults in the way reality is if my viewpoint is correct. If not then I am just wrong.
CW: You simply have enough faith in the powers that be that they won't overstep them to the point where you are no longer able to challenge in a court of law.
M: You could call my point of view one of faith. I could call yours one of paranoia. We seem to react differently to the same set of facts.
CW: Your faith is misplaced as this has already been done, albeit on a bunch of people no one cares about.
M: I this will be the third time I agree, I think. It is what I called being fucked by Bush. He did it and Obama can't undo it for the reasons I gave, in my opinion. But time hasn't stopped. The courts may force Obama to do something. Do you see the magic 5 voting to allow tortured Al Quaeda killers go because their constitutional rights were violated, or more exactly because we violated our own laws in the way we handled them? I don't think so. But if so I think Obama would be forced to comply. Then the hate of the American people would fall on the Activist judges on the SC. Laws may be enacted that makes torture by the government even more illegal than it already is. In short, the story isn't over, and the resilience and self correcting magic of our system hasn't run full course. If I don't actually have greater faith, I think I have greater perspective.
CW: This is merely a trial run like experimenting on rats before moving on to humans, at least in the eyes of the people doing the experiments.
M: A very paranoid statement in my opinion. Not everybody is George Bush, and even he, I believe, was doing what he thought was the right thing to protect the country. He was, however, a pessimist, and didn't believe in the rule of law. He seized the one ring of power. All I see in Obama is a refusal to be fucked by the fucker by adding tragedy to monstrous error.
M: No it doesn't. Such a law would be declared unconstitutional immediately. And it would be 9-0 as even the five assholes would agree to that.
CW: But our system doesn't allow any such declaration of unconstitutionality. It would take well over a year for any suit against such a law to make its way to the USSC, where it would hopefully be overturned.
M: I do not know enough to answer this with certain and I don't want really to go see if I can find out what would be the real answer. I would think the court would act immediately since such a law would imply that the Supreme court is out of a job. It would be an instant negation of the third branch of government. I don't think there's the slightest chance that such a bill will be proposed, much less passed. We do have martial law however.
CW: Since you would be unable to bring such a suit without breaking the law, you could be imprisoned (or worse) in the meanwhile, assuming the suit was somehow allowed to continue. And, while I agree in hoping that it would be overturned, I don't have nearly the certainty that you do.
M: You should ask which came first, the desire to punch people in the throat or the fear the rule of law is ineffective. Too much faith in ones own rectitude and too little faith in the rectitude of others is how you spell vigilante or Unabomber. To properly manage the insanity of the world you will have to suffer on the cross. You will have to have some feeling for the poor fools who know not what they do.
The ego demands to be free and rages against a cage. But the ego is the cage. Your rights are inalienable and can never be taken. You know this by being free inwardly.
zephyrprime
Diamond Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 7,512
- 2
- 81
Crazy ideologues only have a single ideological hammer so they try to make everything into a nail.
Greece is in a bad spot. So what do crazy ideologues say? It's because they have too many government employees! It must be because they are violating our small government principles! Nevermind that the US is in the same sort of dire straits (although not as bad yet) and doesn't have many government employees as you have noticed.
People need to pull their heads of their asses so that they can assess the situation more correctly.
Saying it over and over again doesn't make it any more true. We just have a slightly different model in which many of our government employees aren't counted as government employees: "far more people work under contracts than are directly employed by the government." And that article is from 2007, before the most recent massive inflation of government occurred.
It looks like the socialist paradise of Sweden took my advice back in 2006 and is actually thriving now. The people of Sweden liked the new government to reelect them this year. Four years after introducing austerity measures, their economy is expected to grow 4.5% this year.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09/19/sweden.election/index.html?hpt=T1
Unfortunately, the austerity measures make life difficult for those who paid into the system for so long only to see their money disappear. The longer government tries to supply everyone's needs, the larger the number people who will be adversely affected by the inevitable changes required to maintain solvency
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09/19/sweden.election/index.html?hpt=T1
Unfortunately, the austerity measures make life difficult for those who paid into the system for so long only to see their money disappear. The longer government tries to supply everyone's needs, the larger the number people who will be adversely affected by the inevitable changes required to maintain solvency
Last edited:
zephyrprime
Diamond Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 7,512
- 2
- 81
It's the first time I've ever said it. Also, from your own article, $400B is spent by the government on contractors. With a GDP of $13.84 in 2007, that's not nearly enough to account for 1/2 of the workers being employed by the government in the US like it is in Greece (allegedly).
You and plenty of other illiterates in this thread keep making the same strawman argument which is clearly in opposition to statements in the OP. Try arguing with what I actually said rather than what you wish I would have said.
Sweden's tax revenue is about about 50% of their GDP with government spending is a little over 50% of their GDP. So, yes, austerity was achieved although their government is quite a bit larger than our's and their tax rate nearly doubly so.
They also ran a surplus prior to 2006. They did not run a surplus last year and had one of the largest bailout packages (by percent GDP) in the EU.
I don't know why we would want austerity with high unemployment, low capacity utilization, and low inflation.
http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2010/07/misunderstanding-modern-monetary-theory.html
The question, then, is whether they would have been worse off without the measures than with them. The people there seem to think they are better off with them than they would have been otherwise, as evidenced by their votes. People are stupid and don't necessarily vote rationally, but that's how they obviously see it and I'm not in a position to contradict them, meaning I could very well be wrong as well.
Based on that article, the solution to any problem involving un/underemployment is for the government to simply produce enough money (in whatever form) that the underemployment gap closes to reasonable levels. The worst-case scenario is a moderate increase in inflation. What prevents the onset of currency revulsion? Building a house of cards with no foundation will, at worst, lead to a minor increase in inflation? I must admit that I'm a bit skeptical about such claims.
I do not know, but reforms came long before 2006 and involved many things. A floating currency with the stated goal of low inflation and a strong welfare state backed by reasonable and transparent regulation. I think they are doing fine, and they have government and fiscal policy more intrusive than our's.
Which is true, I'm merely pointing out that austerity for them did not mean a small government by any stretch of the imagination. Also, austerity was achieved well before 2006 which is why I find it odd that the CNN articles makes it sound as if this is something new in Sweden.
Only if inflation is low. If inflation is low it is better to run a deficit so that people are working as opposed to imposing austerity and leaving people unemployed (which is highly inefficient). MMT doesn't make a normative statement about whether these deficits are achieved with reduced taxes or increased spending.
Which is why it is important to look at utilization. If the nation is running at near full employment then running large deficits would have an inflationary effect as government would be competing with the private sector for goods. When a nation has low utilization, there is little risk for inflation. Under MMT, government deficit spending is more in an equilibrium state with private sector surpluses.
Don't forget that as long as people, banks, and institutions have liability denominated in dollars, there will be a demand for dollars. Uncle Sam is not taking lumps of coal as payment for my tax liabilities this year.
Why? How long has our currency been non-convertible?
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 407
-
Facebook
Twitter