reply to John Gelles

[Mathew Forstater <forstate@xxxxxxxx>]

John-

Please be careful about this kind of rhetorical tactic. E-mails get
snipped up, reposted, people read through them quick, and it isn't fair to
write a statement "as if" it was written by Warren, me, or others about
yourself in the third person. It might get confusing.

John, I don't understand who you think is advocating high taxes. Is that
what you are saying we are doing?

As for your criticism that the idea of a tax driven currency is fine, but
what needs to be addressed are policies for contemporary problems, you
know full well that this has been what Warren has been doing since day
one--promoting a policy program for full employment (jobs for all) that
will not be inflationary, or no more inflationary than our present system
(and guards against deflation!).  He has also made it clear that he is not
against going further than this--to issues of living standards, etc.  His
position has been that debates about "going further" should take place in
the context of a guaranteed job for all.  We don't have to decide, for
example, on how much higher we want to raise the minimum wage, before we
can institute a job guarantee.  In other words, let's not debate the fine
points with millions of unemployed.

This seminar paper is making some simple points about the relation of
horizontal and vertical activity, and an analogy between commodity
analysis and the analysis of modern currency.  It has a different purpose
than Warren's FEAPS paper.  It is a shame to get bogged down in all of
this other stuff and not the basic points of the paper.

Mat