Mosler Seminar: Why do voters reject deficits?

["John Gelles" <jjgelles@xxxxxxxx>]

	Dear Warren,

	Please excuse me for saying your refuse to ask
	WHY there is such strong voter resistance to deficits.
	(You have refused -- but excuse me anyway.)

	You are content to have told the voters deficits would
	not raise their taxes.  And there you let it rest.

	The voters do not believe you!  They do not even
	believe Keynes or Vickrey, or Robert Eisner.

	And I do not believe you have answered -- WHY
	they don't believe you.  If you did, you would have
	to admit the voters FEAR that interest costs and
	paying down the debt (if possible) will require
	redistributive taxes to take away "their" money.

	To address that FEAR you SHOULD agree that
	we can dispense with taxes for as long as savings,
	(both forced and voluntary -- both ordinary banked
	saving, and saving in special blocked from spending
	and lending accounts) continue to prevent
	accelerating inflation.  And when and if such varied
	savings are not enough, we can employ a
	progressive tax on certain transactions that will not
	confiscate wealth if the taxed transactions are
	avoided.

	I admit that the rich might not fall for the deal.
	Many would say they WANT to spend to live
	outlandish life styles. And if they kept up such
	life styles, they WOULD be paying progressive
	transaction taxes (which today they avoid,
	while the relatively poor pay whopping social
	security taxes).

	The unnecessary argument over "tax driven"
	versus "legal tender driven" money is one you
	will never win.  Money has nothing to do with
	taxes.  It has everything to do with the power
	of government to enforce contracts in a money
	driven economy.

	I look forward to the day when taxes disappear
	and something like an individual estate account is
	used to store purchasing power for which there
	are insufficient goods and services ready to buy.
	Then, when necessary, these accounts will swell
	to stop inflation and thin out at reasonable rates
	to stop deflation.

	That will be a beginning.  The follow-on steps
	of promoting government investment in place
	of much private investment, to ensure a green
	automated system of production, and to finance
	full employment and high minimum standards of
	consumption, will be the middle course.

	A final reform will be to language, law and
	education to minimize the level of misunder-
	standing between parties in debate. And then
	yet another final reform will end the use of
	untraceable money -- the source of much
	corruption in every place where people
	love money more than is good for us.
	Fully traceable digital money will take its
	place.


	        John Gelles

----------

>From Warren:

John Gelles writes: "Mosler and Forstater refuse ..."

Refuse????  Why such harsh, aggressive, language?

It is considered in both SCE and FEAPS.  And, towards
the end of this draft,  the myth of current deficits
implying future taxes is addressed.