Comments by "Neolithic Transit Revolution" (@neolithictransitrevolution427) on "ReasonTV" channel.

  1. To the question of "solar panels wash up on the beech, would we destroy them?" - I wouldn't suggest relying on them if you know the oceans were strategically against you.
    7
  2. I agree, the Trump and Biden China tariffs are good policy. But, how is it good policy to place an especially high tariff on Canada or Mexico, countries Trump negotiated a free trade deal with, himself? Where is the national security angle on that? How will other countries take trade negotiations seriously when Trump is just going to rip them up whenever he wants?
    7
  3. One of my biggest issues with Rothbard is the aversion to Fractional Reserve banking. Bank deposits are very simply nothing but a call loan. They are a loan made to the bank, which can be repaid at any time, and for that liquidity offer a lower interest rate. Arguing against allowing fractional reserves is simply banning a form of debt and pushing forward that private enterprise should be limited in the financial options it presents. A point about negative interest rates was made. If you require banks to hold full reserves, which is to make them a warehouse, then you will see negative rates, because it costs money to store cash or gold or what have you. If you want to keep your money in a warehouse, feel free to do so. But please don't contrive to use the government from banning me from loaning money to a bank for a positive rate of return.
    5
  4. Property taxes that apply to building values also make it more expensive to build density, whereas land value only taxes make it more expensive to hold undeveloped land
    4
  5.  @imrangul6750  MMT argues that the value of a Fiat currency is derived from the acceptance of the currency in payment of taxes. Consider how long you think the USD would last if the IRS switched to only accepting Pesos. Taxes drive demand for a Fiat currency. They are essential to it's function. The stance MMT takes is that because of this, it's okay to spend more USD in a given year than it collects in taxes, as people will save some for future tax payments or to buy things from someone who will have to pay taxes. And as the economy grows in size, ideally due to rapid growth but probably due to inflation, the amount expected to be collected in the future grows, and so more overspending can occur as more money will be saved.
    3
  6.  @scottcincinnatikid9804  No, what MMT is arguing is that when you increase M, you get a rise in P and/or Q. And that you should focus spending on sectors that raise Q. This is widely accepted in QMT, banks increase M1 and M2 by issuing loans, and the productivity of those loans increases Q enough to compensate. But I agree they can't just liquidate all outstanding debt. I would say selling government debt will always be an important anti inflationary tool, in the same way the Fed pays interest on reserve balances. I would like to see public banking with the Fed, so that people can get the same interest rate on savings as commerical banks do. Or likely, lower rates to take more money out of the economy.
    3
  7.  @willnitschke  I think that's rather obviously personal opinion that the government cannot make productive investments, somewhat ironic given your comment around Mosler claiming fiat currency is a tax credit without or inspite of evidence. I don't disagree private banks should play an important role in money creation. But the base money supply is either fiat currency or a commodity. And if it's fiat currency, then the government obviously has a role in its creation.
    3
  8. The bank already had an asset though, the loan against which the property is being foreclosed. This is more analogous to the bank issuing the mortgage, when it creates the money in the account as a liability to itself and an asset to the borrower, and the loan to be repaid as an asset to itself and a liability to the borrower.
    3
  9.  @1krani  The price is never detached from objective reality; when I pay the price being charged at a given point, I recieved the good or service or stock. Whether the prices are logical isn't relevant. An amount of money exchanged is an objective quantity. How much I want the good and if I think I got a good deal for meeting my needs is entirely a subjective experience. I don't know what your toilet paper point means.
    3
  10. All taxes are going to limit economic growth, the question is what is the tax that has the least impact, because at the end of the day there are going to be taxes. And the answer is a tax on land values, but after that, tariffs are on the better end. But 25% tariffs on Canada? I don't see it as good policy to economically attack an ally. Same is true with mexico but at least there is an argument around lowering wages.
    3
  11. Under a fiat currency the point of the dollar (or euro etc) is to pay taxes. If the federal government said "We will no longer accept USD for paying taxes, from now on only Mexican Pasos will be accepted" people would stop usong the dollar very quickly, and move to the new currency that they cam use to pay thoer taxes and avoid punishment for failing to do so. MMT is saying its okay to spend more of these than you are accepting in a given year, because you are collecting enough to maintain a demand in the market for them.
    3
  12. A better analogy would be whether the British Provoked Hitler to invade Ukraine
    3
  13.  @johndelia9408  Not her, but Warren Mosler (arguably the founder of MMT) has a debate on YouTube against Bob Murphy. It's very good and a much better discussion around the merits and flaws.
    3
  14.  @crbondur  I have to say, no good economic policy can shut down the economy and do well. No one would ever suggest the ideal economic policy is printing money to pay people not to work. The entire point is that any printed money should cause real economic growth, and not inflation.
    2
  15.  @pietersteenkamp5241  I don't so much disagree with you as I disagree that this is relevant to what I've said. My statement reflecting MMTs Chartalistic view of money and the role of taxes in driving a currencies circulation, and that foreknowledge of future raised demand by the government creates room for demand above what's immediately needed by the public allowing inflationless deficits. Certainly progressive taxes are... Progressive. Although they also don't impact savings in the way you're suggesting. The pile of money in my bank account is only taxes on the way in, as income.
    2
  16.  @lukeasacher  money is a liquid asset or unit of debt, in which prices are denominated and values are expressed. And all I'm saying is the Government shouldn't create restrictions like 100% reserve requirements. And I don't believe 100% reserve banks would be commercially successful against lending institutions, and that if 100% reserve banks were required economic growth would be severely limited by the contraction of credit and inability for the market to expand the monetary base creating a deflationary environment.
    2
  17.  @VeniVidiVid  no one is arguing there are no limits. Banks borrow and use that to leverage investments, and increase the money supply while doing so by making loans. But because they make productive investments, this is not inflationary. The point is only that the government can create money to make an investment or fund a program, and the economic growth will expand the tax base enough to collect the created money. That doesn't mean there is an infinite number of productive spending activities. It doesn't mean that the returns will fully cover the program. It just means that if economic activity and the tax base expand because of the spending, the increased demand for dollars can balance out the money creation. Again, as banks do when making loans. The dialogue around MMT is mainly to push the idea that we should focus more on the productivity of our spending programs rather than looking at the deficit or surplus in a tax and spending plan.
    2
  18. Ya tariffs on China make sense. But I don't think the US has higher income or corporate taxes than Canada or the US. And if it does, and your right that this is the issue, why would the solution be to declare trade war on the world instead of just passing a sales tax and cutting income taxes?
    2
  19. If anything she is saying that if spending is disconnected from actual goods and productive capacity inflation is the result, and monitoring that should be the primary concern of government's making spending decisions.
    2
  20. @objectivethinker3225 I would never want to be associated to Stephanie Kelson, but i would point out that Companies don't stop borrowing when things are going well, if anything they borrow and expand more. I don't believe our public infrastructure should be viewed as a make work scheme. I don't see an issue in borrowing to build a new railway school or electrical transmission, whether the economy is in recession or growth. In fact, I think the private sector can react and plan better if infrastructure is planned and built on long time horizons. All of which is to say, I don't think "spend in bad times save in good" is really the best policy in comparison to targetting a decreasing debt to GDP ratio.
    2
  21. ​ @koltoncrane3099 The main argument of MMT is the government should just take over the Federal reserves role, and so there wouldn't be any owners to take advantage of the US government. As for the other comment, I wouldn't blame the EPA, not destroying North America is a good thing. But there should be environmental tariffs on foreign imports.
    2
  22.  @willnitschke  It's important to note that the Hyperinflation in Wiemar was also largely a result of the French Occupation of the Rhine and subsequent mass strike. The government had been printing money and high levels of inflation were the norm, but the hyperinflation with people burning money happened when they printed money while shutting down their economy. But ya I agree the level of power MMT suggests giving a government is a risk. I would only question if it's not significantly worse than the status quo, how it compares to the extent to which Fed policy is already done in league with the Treasury, and if it isn't more transparent.
    2
  23. ​ @1krani Value is absolutely subjective. The tenth glass of water is worth less to me than the first 9, and yet worth far more to a person who hasn't drank in days. Iron ore is worth very little to me, without a blast furnace, but worth more ti someone producing steel. Price is Objective. Its the value being asked for. It may be negotiable, but the final price in dollars is the same if I'm the one who bought it, or sold it, or watched the interaction, or am reviewing it decades later.
    2
  24. ​ @Richest_Person_in_the_World Economic arguably isn't a science at all, since you can't run repeatable hypothetical experiments
    2
  25.  @1krani  What? Value is the one that is different to multiple people in differing situations. That's subjective. Price is a number recorded and an amount of currency transferred in an exchange. People may negotiate changes to price, but the price they pay is still an objective amount.
    2
  26. David Freidman is incorrect in his portrayal of his Father's theory on the driver of the depression; the vast majority of banks that failed were not members of the Fed system or protected as a Lender of last resort. In fact, the criticism of the federal reserve is exactly that it restricted loans to member banks.
    2
  27. I support nuclear, but I think some of the arguments here are very bias Blaming Germany's coal consumption on shutting down nuclear is unfair when obviously the disruption of Natural Gas is a main player, and coal use today is below where it was when the (admittedly bad) choice was made. The emissions of 2 natural gas plants, which are going to operate off cycle with renewables, is obviously a very lower level of pollution. The US does have absurd laws that make nuclear more dangerous, and plants shouldn't be storing decades of waste on sight.
    2
  28.  @willnitschke  I would suggest that because YouTube is so difficult to communicate with, replacing an explanation with an assertion is particularly useless. I also have a minor in economics, I don't claim expertise, but implying I have no grasp is a weak character argument. I don't endorse MMT and Kelson is a Hack. But the point around the dollar being a tax credit is a point I agree on. It's a Fiat currency, everyone knows this is a creation of the state. Your reply is equivalent to thinking that wheat isn't grown for food because a farmer could never eat it all themselves; people who don't pay taxes, whether domestic or international users, have a large population of working individuals who do need USD for taxes to trade with. It hardly matters why people think a currency has value, how many people think USD has value because "Petro dollar and US Navy"? No one is trading scarps of unbacked paper because it just feels right. I agree that Fiat currencies compete with each other in part on the basis you are describing. The US dollar is more reliable than the Argentinian dollar undoubtedly. The issues around Argentina spending more than is taxed is widely understood and fits perfectly well within this framing, what good are tax credits when everyone has more than enough to pay taxes. Look again at Canada. In the last decade both the $1000 bill and 1¢ penny have stopped being accepted by the government, neither remain in usage. Look at the French Franc or the German Mark or the Italian Lyra etc. None are accepted by their former government, and so none remain in circulation. Instead the Euro, accepted by all 3 governments, is the currency. I don't understand why it's contentious to you that a Fiat currency, issued by a government, is primarily valued by its acceptance by that government. One can pay for another good with any other currency, or choose not to pay for a good or service. Taxes are required in set currencies, chiefly the national fiat but with exceptions - generally based around accepting USD - and must be paid. Inarguably a government can print currency. Surely you would agree a government that printed currency but refused to accept it would soon find that currency valueless. How is it you disagree then, that accepting a Fiat currency is what drives its value?
    2
  29.  @anmolbrar1293  assuming you are speaking from an MMT perspective, taxation is a took to alleviate inflation, but not the only one. Bill Mitchell argues that deregulation is a solution to inflation, re the deregulation of the natural gas industry leading to an end of stagflation. Warren Mosler argues regulated monopoly can be a solution to inflation, re the deflationary impact of a National Medicare program and elimination of private issuance and the related bureaucracy. Tax simplification and the reduction in accountant demand would be another example. And obviously a very core component of MMT is that Government debt finances spending can be productive, and productivity lowers inflation..
    2
  30.  @Richest_Person_in_the_World  Money as a tax credit is just Chartalism. MMT also includes discussion around automatic stabilizers (which I support) and a Zero Interest Rate Policy (which I think is in error), and using fiscal policy to combat inflation. It is the blend of Post Keynesian economics and Chartalism that is the basis of MMT.
    1
  31.  @scottcincinnatikid9804    I suggest watching a video of Warren Mosler. He's arguably the founder and far more articulate, he even has a debate against Bob Murphy. I suggest the entire argument of MMT is that you should focus on spending that creates real growth rather than deficits. I would agree that MMT leans toward more Government control of the economy than a perfect free market, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it a command economy. At least, not by necessity. But I do of course agree with your concern of politicized and ignorant spending from the federal government. I'd suggest a policy of Federal government financing municipal governments and charities to pay for minimum wage full time work. I think that would do a better job at finding useful, if short term, roles for people. The Fed also doesn't use interest to create more reserves. I'm not clear what was meant there.
    1
  32.  @scottcincinnatikid9804  I suggest watching a video of Warren Mosler. He's arguably the founder and far more articulate, he even has a debate against Bob Murphy. But the point about spending to increase real output and base spending restrictions on inflation rather than deficits levels. I also wouldn't agree this is a command economy, but I do agree it speaks to that argument about the level of cooperation vs competition in the economy. I certainly agree with the concerns around government lacking responsibility. I would like to see the Federal Government fund municipal governments and Charities to hire employees at full time minimum wage. Much better for finding useful work for people to do imo. I'd also let manufacturering firms use it for up to 6 months on the condition they have to pay half of it back if the employee isn't employed there in a year. The Fed also doesn't use internet to create reserves I'm not sure what you mean by this
    1
  33.  @scottcincinnatikid9804  I mean of course they believe it's going to raise Q as much as M. That's the whole point. Wether they are crazy or not is a seperate point, and I would suggest Stephanie Kelson is the craziest of all because she seems to think you can pay for a rebuild of the national infrastructure by printing money. Before forming to firm an opinion, I suggest watching Bob Murphy (the Austrian Economist in this video) debate Warren Mosler. This provided me with real understanding of a much more reasoned view of what is meant by MMT. I certainly agree with the view of politicians and government lol, but I think you could take meaningful take aways from MMT while maintaining an competitive free market. It's certainly not calling for a command economy. The Fed also doesn't use interest to create reserves, I'm not sure what you mean there.
    1
  34.  @scottcincinnatikid9804   @scottcincinnatikid9804  I mean of course they believe it's going to raise Q as much as M. That's the whole point. Wether they are crazy or not is a seperate point, and I would suggest Stephanie Kelson is the craziest of all because she seems to think you can pay for a rebuild of the national infrastructure by printing money. Before forming to firm an opinion, I suggest watching Bob Murphy (the Austrian Economist in this video) debate Warren Mosler. This provided me with real understanding of a much more reasoned view of what is meant by MMT. I certainly agree with the view of politicians and government lol, but I think you could take meaningful take aways from MMT while maintaining an competitive free market. It's certainly not calling for a command economy. The Fed also doesn't use interest to create reserves, I'm not sure what you mean there.
    1
  35.  @willnitschke  I suppose you did not say "never", but you did emphasize "not" when speaking as to whether government should make investment. I would agree pre 2010 China is a strong example of government led investment. I would disagree that governments should not make investment that encourages competitive advantage in sectors a nation specializes in or has strategic interest in. No debt is productive. Spending is productive. The issue at concern is always the value of the spending, and never a question of financing. It's no surprise to anyone, national or international, that the US government funding to the US medial or Military Industrial Complex is not efficient. This is an issue of regulatory capture and lobbying, not of how funds are raised. "That's just empty platitudes" is some pretty empty criticism. I guess you're suggesting fiat currency isn't government driven? Obviously it is.
    1
  36.  @willnitschke  no... But the fact you would reply only to the last sentence of a two paragraph answer suggests you are.
    1
  37.  @willnitschke  toward debt servicing, the obvious question is what was the debt itself spent on. Towards entitlements, differing entitlements have differing impacts. Still, I would never acuse the US government of any kind of efficiency. That certainly doesn't go against the claim some money creation pays for itself. Again, Banks do this regularly in making loans. It would be impressive if government money creation never led to real value creation, when the private sector nearly always does.
    1
  38.  @willnitschke  good dunk bro
    1
  39. @scottcincinnatikid9804  I think you really need to decide who the "proponents" are. I really suggest listening to Warren Mosler on YouTube. He actually debates Bob Murphy from this video. Bill Mitchell is also worth listening to. They are widely seen as the founders, and I tend to think they are speaking about the correct way the monetary system operates. Then you have Stephanie Kelton here, who seems to actively misrepresent and represent in the most confusing terms possible MMT, and baits people who want certain policies into believing they can be gotten for free. While these people might say they support MMT, I don't believe they actually understand anything other than a vague idea of money creation. While obviously many supporters of MMT do believe some degree of central planning is beneficial, I don't think it's correct to frame MMT in general as being any more supportive of Central Planning than a Central Bank and fiat currency inherently is. The fact that radical elements might misrepresent something to justify spending they, as you point out, were going to justify regardless has no bearing on that initial thing's, here MMT's, validity. But a correction; the Fed doesn't use interest to create reserves. Reserves are created through asset purchases. Interest recieved by the Fed goes to the treasury as general revenue, after subtracting operating expenses. If the balance is negative, the Treasury pays the difference.
    1
  40.  @scottcincinnatikid9804  idk why but my reply isn't coming through. Long story short, I suggest watching Bob Murphy (from this video) debate Warren Mosler.
    1
  41. @scottcincinnatikid9804  I don't recall this coming up from either Bob or Warren, I may rewatch and get back to you, but I've seen Warren in several interviews and he's certainly not shy about the reality of government lending or implicitly suggesting the Fed buys all debt. I'd be surprised if Bob had left such an easy point I scored. Sorry if I'm digging something old up, I didn't see myself replying to when I was trying to figure out what the guy replying to me was referencing. In my longer reply, I certainly agreed with the point Kelton isn't being genuine, but that wouldn't post. I do have to say I think it's an entirely ideological point to suggest the government can only achieve a zero sum gain. You could suggest empirically it's rare, and we could debate the point. But I can point to a number of Governments, Norway, Singapore, Switzerland, who have very apparently grown wealth.
    1
  42. @scottcincinnatikid9804  I don't have any strong objections to these points. And your third sentence is non-confrontational. The only thing somewhat nebulous is the fourth sentence, because MMT suggests (and not only MMT) that while the government while take after giving, the giving will create enough benefits it is still worth while. I would say we shouldn't vote off Proverbs, and that the concept of MMT says we should vote for responsible financiers. I guess my main disagreement, I should be clear it is not inherent, is "The borrowing happening now, even if held by the Fed, will require future debt servicing cost, meaning less". You'll never find a successful business afraid to borrow. While technically I agree, borrowing means repayment with interest, I don't agree that implies less. We should expect our elected government to invest well enough that less is not the outcome. A failure in this is a failure in the democratic concept. I would never expect the public sector to invest better than the best of the private sector, but I do believe proper investment into infrastructure and a nation's comparative or strategic advantages leveraged at the relatively low borrowing rates nations face can be advantageous. Honestly, if someone ran on the idea of giving every citizen a savings account funded by national borrowing, where we could only keep the dividend payments, I'd have to think very seriously about what I thought of the lower end of society. The low cost of national borrowing is enticing. "Government spending for the most part is just reclassification of who will consume". Even on this point, between tax and borrowing, I'm not sure tax is the better choice. Taxing means taking away from productive investment, borrowing means taking away from the least productive investments. Does the economy really grow better under an income tax that pays for education than borrowing now in the expectation those educated will grow the economy? I find it hard to square.
    1
  43.  @macsnafu    The exchange function, and also that it is the unit of account. It is obvious that printing money doesn't create new wealth, but spending that money does lead to production of new wealth. You say like any borrower, the government will have to repay it's loan. But I put forward that large financial institutions don't intend on repaying all their debt, which exist in the form of deposit, and actually aim to increase debt annually. Debt can be a very inexpensive way to access capital. I don't see why we wouldn't want to leverage government spending, with our main concern being growth in the tax base, or Debt to GDP. If you're talking about a crowding out effect, that exists only to the extent interest rates are raised due to borrowing, which itself is a question of inflation. But I would suggest a low crowding out effect is less damaging than taxes in many cases. Taxes are indiscriminate and disincentivize working, interest rates of 3% mean that any investment returning 3% or less won't be made, which means only the least productive will be impacted. In some cases government borrowing can certainly stimulate the economy. When people are afraid to invest they pull capital out of the market. Government debt can pull that back into circulation, and that spending could have a positive multiplier effect. The Guaranteed Job scheme I would support is to have the Federal government fund a program that allows Charities and Municipalities to pay workers Minimum wage for 8 hours a day 5 hours a week, with a basic benefits package. That would keep these jobs from competing with the private market, and I think charities and municipalities are best suited to finding a variety of tasks for differing skills and doing it quickly. I would also extend it to Manufacturering companies for up to 6 months of training, with the requirement the company has to pay 50% of the cost back if the employee isn't working there in a year.
    1
  44.  @lukeasacher  I have no problem with people keeping their money in a warehouse if they want to; but once they realize they will be getting a negative interest rate and they could loan to a healthy banking operation instead, I don't think anyone will - and as far as I know no one ever has.
    1
  45.  @lukeasacher  I agree, but would add that I support the usage of a Land Value tax, particularly at local/municipal levels, and would be alright with taxing bodies having their own fiat currency such that every city might have a local dollar, and likewise that companies (particularly those involved with retail) should be able to issue currency backed by the fact they accept it. Similar to what we're seeing with points systems- I think it's more likely points systems take over the role of government money for 95% of transactions over any crypto coins. All you have to do is repeal the law on Company Script and Walmart could pay you in part in Walmart points, but it's worth it because you get a better price for groceries etc with the points. Tie in gift cards, denominated your points in dollars and cents. There are companies working on exchanges already. Edit: to my Land Value tax point, I would note that in Atlas Shrugged, the Gulch is expressly said to be funded by the owner collecting ground rent, excluding what they built on the parcel, and used to fund the municipal and defensive functions. Implicitly she agrees that ground rent is the best source of funding a community. To which my only objection to her utopia is that while now the government and the bank split my income quite evenly, I do look forward to the future when it's only the government. And I don't think the form of society she puts forward thrives under a banker owning everyone's property.
    1
  46.  @lukeasacher  "only gold and silver are money, prove me wrong". Well, what do you define money as? Because if the answer is "gold and silver" I can't price you wrong lol, all I can say is that would not be how either economists or the broad public define it. Unfortunately the infrastructure that serves your house and the services you receive from the government are not free, and don't stop costing money when you reach a certain age. You could argue people over 70 shouldn't have to pay property taxes, although personally I think taxes are already skewed to the benefit of retirees by enough. But again Friedman said that land taxes were the least bad tax, as did Smith. To the extent a government is funded, land taxes should be the significant component imo.
    1
  47.  @lukeasacher  I just think the market is moving towards using points as a currency far quicker than any crypto. If using points gives you some form of discount, people have a reason to leave the dollar and use more points. Corporations get revenue before seeing expenses and have lower cost of capital. The infrastructure is widely in place and used extensively, and intensively by a small group of consumers. I can check how much I can buy an item of similar quality in multiple points systems, denominated in points. I simply can't do that with crypto or silver. I'm not saying people won't hold gold or that international settlements might be in gold. Maybe even B2B transactions. But if companies continue to raise prices while giving out deals for points users, it might eventually drive uptake.
    1
  48.  @kasimirfreeman  banks loan deposits. It's what they've always done. They have safety deposit boxes of you want to treat them like a warehouse.
    1
  49. @connorism69  I disagree that people failing to understand changes anything at all. I've understood this since highschool. It's a call loan loan pure and simple. If you're a grown adult who thinks banks keep all your money in a big vault and pay you interest just to be nice, I have bad news about Santa and the tooth fairy as well.
    1
  50.  @mankisito  I believe you're conflating deficits and money creation, but in fairness Stephanie Kelton does as well. But Deficits don't mean a reduction in the populations spending power. As to how much the government misallocates spending, that's dependent on your version of ideal is and should be taken in perspective of how much is poorly vs well allocated.
    1