Mosler seminar

[John Vertegaal <vertegaa@xxxxxxxxx>]

Since I've had my discussion with Mosler already quite a while ago,
I hoped someone else would have brought this up:

If H(nfa) increases cause unemployment, and H(nfa) decreases cause
inflation; as Mosler states, and I agree with; why take as datum
something that is "bad" either way, and propose to ameliorate its
effects?  Why not try to negate an already untenable level of H(nfa)?

Isn't this just catering to "fallaciously" derived opinions of what
nfa's are capable of doing? i.e. ...to at least inflation free
postpone one's consumption requirements".  Seems like a null set
to me; and Mosler's version of ELR, a "supply side" argument in a
demand constraint economy.  His partiality to NAIRU is telling in
that respect as well.
                              ---

The first step to solving unemployment and inflation problems is
to recognize; that, at least when viewed from the perspective of an
aggregate standard of living potential; there are NO determinate
"funds" of any kind.
  As a consequence of this, savings are NOT required for continuous
prosperity; and adequate investments will be the automatic result
(given: the propensity to invest laying in profitable current
returns) of depreciation receipts embodied in the cost of output.

Hence: The answer lies in appropriate taxation.  All IMHO of course.


John V.