Re: Mosler: seminar

["John Gelles" <jjgelles@xxxxxxxx>]

	Today's contribution by William Ryan, below,
	contains much of my complaint over the years with
	the Mosler view of fiat money -- whose power
	M. understands but whose limitations he often
	under-estimates:  Without automated supply
	and effective anti-inflation programs, fiat money
	is too weak to create necessary wealth.

	In my view, fiat money is not tax driven.  It is
	tax constrained:

	                   Remove taxes, and its political
	appeal can be strengthened.  Give it a means
	to be reduced (through saving in un-spendable
	accounts) to fight inflation, and a means to
	keep pace with supply (but not get too far
	ahead of same) -- and voila!  That is fiat money:
	A tool of functional finance that can make global
	democratic capitalism a boon to the poor and an
	unalloyed pleasure for the rich.
	

        John Gelles: Vote for an Individual Estate Account (IEA)
        jjgelles@xxxxxxxx                http://www.rain.org/~jjgelles/
        Modern nations cannot afford poverty, it costs too much.
        Its price is the money  the poor don't spend  that the rest
        would earn if they did.  If those with the least spent what
        it takes for a decent life, the rest would all have more for
        a grander one. That is  the nature of  production and free
        enterprise  protected  from monopoly  by law, and  from
        deflation and inflation by  individual indexed savings held
        in tax free accounts to create a controlled flow of money.
       [All the above equals an Individual Estate Account (IEA)]

---------- message separator ---------

From: William B. Ryan <william_b_ryan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: POST-KEYNESIAN THOUGHT   <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Mosler:  seminar
Date: Thursday, June 04, 1998 8:56 AM

1.  I had written:

http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/pkt/jun98/0010.html

"Mosler's thesis is that money, in every form and from whatever source,
derives its value from the imperative to pay taxes in government issued
'currency.'"

In response, Warren Mosler wrote:

http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/pkt/jun98/0015.html

"You are reading too much into the paper.  This draft states that it is
providing a framework for analyzing tax driven currencies.  Not 'money'
in general, whatever that is!"

Literally, then, Mosler must be using the word "currency" to mean
currency, not as a metaphor for other forms of money, including checking
deposits.  ... Most transactions are conducted by checks or electronic
substitutes for checks.

..... [see remained of original message today]