Re: tax driven currency

[Hyman Blumenstock <hystock@xxxxxxxx>]

In the REAL Real Science world of fantastic success, despite the funding
shortage created out of fantasy by the Social Science world, "long
histories" are inevitably of completely erroneous philosophies.  There
is nothing at all certain about anything, as is evident in the latest
physics news about neutrinos.  Yet, in the UNREAL Social Science world,
noted for chronic failure, not one success at anything, "long histories"
seem to carry a lot of weight.  Is there a correlation?  It should be
obvious.

Hyman

John Gelles wrote:
>
>         Mathew Forstater writes:
>
> "Let's be clear about one thing. Any who want to argue against the
> idea of "tax driven currency" should at least acknowledge that they
> are arguing against an idea that has a long history in economics from
> at least 1776 to 1998, including strong support from Post Keynesians
> (but not only Post Keynesians), and including Keynes.  This doesn't
> mean one can't argue against it.  But it shouldn't be summarily
> dismissed."
>
>         Speaking for myself, it is easy to accept all arguments
>         that the connection, between taxes and money's
>         purchasing power, supports the "tax driven money"
>         mechanisms described by Mosler, Forstater and others.
>
>         But these are mechanisms we are trying to improve
>         and reform.  By inviting (or allowing) high taxes on
>         those most able to resist, they have left us with
>         inadequate purchasing power to clear our markets
>         (of what we can and ought to produce), and with
>         avoidable poverty, pollution and unemployment.
>
>                 They have left us with effective political
>                 opposition to Keynesian solutions.
>
>         On the other hand, to view money as "tax
>         constrained", in the sense that money should be a
>         carrot held out to producers to get the ball rolling.
>         Once production lags too far behind demand, and
>         inflation looms as a threat to the carrot effect, such
>         money must be hardened -- made dearer -- by
>         capital levy, income tax, turnover tax, or "forced
>         and voluntary saving".  Of these, the last
>         alternative, "forced and voluntary saving", is best.
>
>         If, after "forced and voluntary saving" has defeated
>         inflation, (with the help of turnover tax if necessary),
>         and a mixed economy has put government in
>         competition with giant private corporations, we
>         can turn sand, oil and digital copies into so much
>         output that savings can be released for some non-
>         inflationary spending, we will have done the
>         Keynesian thing.
>
>         The Keynesian thing, after all, is prosperous, green
>         full employment, and all        the real good things in life.
>         I is not endless dispute over how to describe money
>         and banking as we know them (or as they ought to
>         be.)
>
>         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)]
>