An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
Donald Trump says the U.S. is not a rich country because we "borrow." In this video I debunk that dumb comment and talk about the supposed debt of the US, which is really fake and used only to program us into subservience.
36 comments:
Anonymous
said...
"How can you borrow something that you can make without limit? The whole concept is totally ridiculous!"
Of course there is a limit. It's called hyperinflation and breakdown of the currency. Just because there is no limit IN PRINCIPLE, it does not mean that there is no limit IN PRACTISE.
"And guess what? It's voluntary. The whole thing is voluntary."
No it isn't. The US dollar system is INVOLUNTARY, because we are forced to pay the state taxes in dollars. In China it's not voluntary, because the people there are forced to relay their dollars to the Chinese central bank at an exchange rate determined by the Chinese state.
The only "voluntarism" taking place is the US state agreeing with the Chinese state to screw the Chinese people, and, within the US, to screw Americans who receive the new dollars last and benefit Americans who receive them first.
It's a system of currency servitude, designed to benefit the states and their banking friends, at the expense of the common US and Chinese citizens who are last in line.
It's good that you realized the Chinese people are getting screwed by the dollar-Yuan exchange system the Chinese state is imposing on them. But you failed to mention that the "Rah Rah Let's Go Uncle Sam!" dollar system doesn't benefit all Americans equally, and in fact is exploitative because it benefits those first in line at the expense of those last in line.
While the Chinese communists in charge would rather keep their people working for less so as to keep feeding off their productivity, the American communists in charge also would rather keep SOME Americans working for less so as to keep OTHER Americans feeding off their productivity as well.
People hate MMT because they cannot refute it. This is a nice thread: http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2011/10/quick-question-for-the-mmters.html Austrians ask a question thinking the issue is a problem for MMT, then Scott Fullwiler comes and knocks them out, they respond with some whining about MMT being in favor of "violence". Yawn.
It's not really so much that MMT is hard to prove wrong as it's just the fact that its believers are like a religious cult who believe soft currency economics is the bible and mosler is a god. It's tough to separate people from their religion so you MMT cult followers don't see how it's wrong. Blinded by faith.
http://occupyamerica.crooksandliars.com/diane-sweet/thom-hartmann-pennsylvania-mayor-cuts- will cops who get their wages and bennies cut still beat down their fellow citizens?
Wrong on bonds Wrong on gold Wrong on the dollar Wrong on stocks Wrong on China Wrong on the US economy Wrong on interest rates Wrong on commodities Wrong on the stimulus Wrong on inflation Wrong on Europe Wrong on the euro Wrong on Japan Wrong on cb "money printing" Wrong on oil And even wrong on...HOUSING!!!
Quote: "No it isn't. The US dollar system is INVOLUNTARY, because we are forced to pay the state taxes in dollars."
State taxes in dollars doesn't make it involuntary? The dollars are IOUs from the Government. If you never wanted to the government redeem (tax) the IOU claims you are holding against it then just don't accept dollars or use any public services including the rights to employment within the country. As you soon as accept the dollars then you have agreed to be tax liable as those dollars are a legally binding claim on national product.
If you don't want a part of the national system of production then you can leave for North Korea or some other private Free Market State just like Ben Franklin suggested "require among the savages."
"State taxes in dollars doesn't make it involuntary?"
Is that a question or a statement? I said the US dollar system IS involuntary, because we are forced to pay state taxes in US dollars, even if we trade in non-dollar commodities.
"If you never wanted to the government redeem (tax) the IOU claims you are holding against it then just don't accept dollars or use any public services including the rights to employment within the country."
I am forced to pay taxes in US dollars even if I don't use any "public services." Even if I never summons anyone to court, even if I never dial 911, even if I never call the police, even if I never use a public road, even if I never have any kids and thus never use a public school, even if I do what I do with private businesses, and choose not to solicit their goods or services according to my liking, I STILL have to pay taxes for those "services."
"As you soon as accept the dollars then you have agreed to be tax liable as those dollars are a legally binding claim on national product."
I have to pay taxes in US dollars even if I don't accept US dollars. The IRS will simply charge me the US dollar "equivalent."
"If you don't want a part of the national system of production then you can leave for North Korea or some other private Free Market State just like Ben Franklin suggested "require among the savages."
Aaaaaand I win. When your only recourse is to declare the state having feudalist ownership over all land, then I win.
I don't know, I'm still laughing at you in that video.
Okay, okay - everybody settle down. Regardless of how everyone feels about Mr. Norman's style, I think we can all agree that Peter Schiff is totally clueless.
As mater of fact, the state can exert ownership over land and does so frequently for a variety of reasons. Get caught dealing drugs out your house in the US, and the state can confiscate the RE. The state can also require owners to sell property at reasonable price against their wishes if public use trumps private use. The owners can sue in the courts in the US, but they often if not usually loose.
One can say argue it is not "right," but it is the law in many if not most jurisdictions, and while everyone is entitled to due process, courts often side with the state against owners.
Okay, okay - everybody settle down. Regardless of how everyone feels about Mr. Norman's style, I think we can all agree that Peter Schiff is totally clueless.
I don't know, the guy in that video I posted rolling his eyes, and laughing at the notion of housing problems, definitely seemed clueless.
"When your only recourse is to declare the state having feudalist ownership over all land, then I win"
The state creates the laws of the land.
So what.
One of those laws at present is that (eligible) people and organsations have to pay taxes.
You're saying this like you just discovered it.
If you don't like the law, try to get it changed.
How are you going to do that?
Take part in the democratic process like everyone else.
I don't want my desires IMPOSED on anyone else. "Taking part in the democratic process" is taking part in a process whereby what I want for myself, is then transposed and forced on others.
I don't want to force my desires on others against their will. I merely want to be able to make my own choices for myself in peace, and that includes not paying taxes and not receiving a single government "service."
The Democratic process is inherently violent and coercive. I can only get what I want there if I am in the 51%, and only if I don't give a shit about those in the 49%.
"Well, I guess you might as well head for a frontier or an outlaw area, or maybe an über-Libertarian community away from any national jurisdiction."
The obligation to cease and desist "interacting" with unwilling parties is on the part of the non-owners, not the owners.
If I was travelling with a group of people, and we came across a socialist commune, and I was as arrogant and aggressive as a statesman and demanded that they hold me as their final authority in security and protection over that commune territory, and to pay me what I want them to pay me, and if they don't pay me and don't obey my final judgments, then I will demand that they leave, and if they refuse, then I will threaten them with violence, and if they still refuse to leave, then I will use violence against them and throw all dissenters into a cage, then surely you will see how my actions would be aggressive against the socialist territory owners.
Now suppose that instead of a socialist commune, there was instead a series of private property territories. Suppose that I approach the owners in the same way. My actions would still be aggressive.
Suppose I succeeded in my aggressive actions against the private property owners, and the owners were all intimidated into holding me as final authority. They end up paying me for my monopoly "protection." Suppose some years pass. Suppose I pass my powers onto others who have monopoly rule. Suppose in the future that the majority of private property owners start to impose their will on the minority of private property owners, through a group of territorial monopolist "representatives."
Suppose a private property owner who is in the minority says this whole set up is unjust, because it is a function of aggression, not consent. That the majority of people never had any "right" to impose their will and morality on those in the minority.
What you are saying to me right here and right now is that those who are in the minority simply have to OBEY the "representatives" of the majority.
You say "move" like it's the obligation of the owner (socialist communal part-owner or individual private property owner) to move away from their own land.
You say move away to someplace without monopoly gangs, but über-Libertarians already tried that during the 17th and 18th centuries in the US to become free from the British monarch's rule. Monopolists came in and wrecked the place.
"k, I get that you want the law to be changed so that you don't have to pay taxes any more."
AND I do not want to receive any "public services" either. Don't forget that part. I don't just want to stop paying taxes. I want to stop the violence based "state-citizen" relationship altogether, which of course includes a cessation of the state imposing its "services" as well.
"What I am asking you is how you are going to get the law changed."
I don't expect to get the law changed, because I am vastly, vastly outnumbered. My acting freely yet peacefully makes me a "criminal" in the eyes of those who tell me what to do with my own body and property.
"Are you going to take up arms and revolt?"
No, because I cannot physically compete with aircraft carriers, super sonic jets, and nuclear missile launching submarines. It would be suicide.
"What are you going to do?"
Educate.
Violent control cannot continue to exist if enough people are aware it is taking place. Most people don't even know the aggressively violent nature of the state. Me taking my small arms pistol and trying to stop the state from using force against me would be the most foolish thing I could ever do. Not only will I be impossibly outnumbered, but, if I'm not killed, I will almost certainly be branded a terrorist and almost certainly be sent to east Europe where I'll be tortured by psychopaths with badges. My family would almost certainly end up being harassed by patriotic psychos, my descendants would almost certainly be ridiculed and bullied by the brainwashed children of patriotic psychos.
My battle is not in the field. My battle is in the area of ideas, which influences people in a way that brings out the best of people for my benefit. Fighting physical battles influences people also, but in a way that brings out the worst in them and will not benefit me.
I'd rather live in a world of independent producers who do with their property what they want without my permission, than in a world where everyone is my slave and they won't do anything unless I tell them what to do.
Anonymous, that happens all the time and successful social experimenters have learned to stay under the radar by being transparent to friends and invisible to enemies. "Friend" is define as a person that has passed through the trust filter and shown the ability to be self-sufficient and to voluntarily cooperate for mutually benefit. "Enemy" is define as anyone who seeks to control others. So we are on the same page in that respect. The secret to avoiding detection by undesirables is camouflaging, establishing filters for access, and is staying decentralized and flexible in operations. It's very much a guerrilla strategy.
Now it would be nice if this were not necessary, but it is.
I mean enough people to stage another intellectual revolution which will reveal to most what the state really is: an unnecessary gang of thieves writ large.
Revolution is going to happen violently or peacefully. Each form of statism can only give way to another form, or to abolition, since statism has internal contradictions.
So this revolution of yours, will it consist of overthrowing the government by force, defending your own territory against the government, or getting "enough people" to vote for your policies in elections?
Specifics would be appreciated, rather than the usual rhetoric about state violence, etc.
So this revolution of yours, will it consist of overthrowing the government by force, defending your own territory against the government, or getting "enough people" to vote for your policies in elections?
I am with Anonymous. Intellectual revolution is best. Violent revolutions result in deaths of innocent people, and elections are silly, because elections presuppose government.
Violent revolutions also tend to be rather volatile when it comes to the resulting structure, which makes it possible, and perhaps even likely, that the outcome will be even worse than what we have now.
When people's minds are educated with good ideas, then their actions will follow. Mindless violence is not the best way IMO.
36 comments:
"How can you borrow something that you can make without limit? The whole concept is totally ridiculous!"
Of course there is a limit. It's called hyperinflation and breakdown of the currency. Just because there is no limit IN PRINCIPLE, it does not mean that there is no limit IN PRACTISE.
"And guess what? It's voluntary. The whole thing is voluntary."
No it isn't. The US dollar system is INVOLUNTARY, because we are forced to pay the state taxes in dollars. In China it's not voluntary, because the people there are forced to relay their dollars to the Chinese central bank at an exchange rate determined by the Chinese state.
The only "voluntarism" taking place is the US state agreeing with the Chinese state to screw the Chinese people, and, within the US, to screw Americans who receive the new dollars last and benefit Americans who receive them first.
It's a system of currency servitude, designed to benefit the states and their banking friends, at the expense of the common US and Chinese citizens who are last in line.
It's good that you realized the Chinese people are getting screwed by the dollar-Yuan exchange system the Chinese state is imposing on them. But you failed to mention that the "Rah Rah Let's Go Uncle Sam!" dollar system doesn't benefit all Americans equally, and in fact is exploitative because it benefits those first in line at the expense of those last in line.
While the Chinese communists in charge would rather keep their people working for less so as to keep feeding off their productivity, the American communists in charge also would rather keep SOME Americans working for less so as to keep OTHER Americans feeding off their productivity as well.
Anon
You are making an argument that is unrelated to Mike's point.
You would likely get some agreement with your points here but your rant is off-topic.
another great vid, mike!!
keep it up!! win the fight!!
"in fact is exploitative because it benefits those first in line at the expense of those last in line."
Are you talking about inflation?
MMT - it's like watching a slow motion train wreck. I don't even think some of you know you're on this train either.
although it's probably about 4 people max.
They're funny!
People hate MMT because they cannot refute it. This is a nice thread:
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2011/10/quick-question-for-the-mmters.html
Austrians ask a question thinking the issue is a problem for MMT, then Scott Fullwiler comes and knocks them out, they respond with some whining about MMT being in favor of "violence". Yawn.
Hey Mike, are you trying to attract more women to the MMT cause with that tight T-shirt, or more gays?
Not that there's anything wrong with that ;
It's not really so much that MMT is hard to prove wrong as it's just the fact that its believers are like a religious cult who believe soft currency economics is the bible and mosler is a god. It's tough to separate people from their religion so you MMT cult followers don't see how it's wrong. Blinded by faith.
Hey Mike, are you trying to attract more women to the MMT cause with that tight T-shirt, or more gays?
Geoff,
All the gays that I ever met were neoliberals, but they're welcome to switch sides. ;)
They're funny!
THIS is funny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw#t=3m24s
But, but, but...MMT "got everything right!"
Hopefully these a$$hole haters will get a life and find something better to do with their time.
http://occupyamerica.crooksandliars.com/diane-sweet/over-70-injured-protesters-clash-polic
http://occupyamerica.crooksandliars.com/diane-sweet/thom-hartmann-pennsylvania-mayor-cuts- will cops who get their wages and bennies cut still beat down their fellow citizens?
Anonymous:
LOL!!! How's your wonder boy, Schiff, doing now?
Wrong on bonds
Wrong on gold
Wrong on the dollar
Wrong on stocks
Wrong on China
Wrong on the US economy
Wrong on interest rates
Wrong on commodities
Wrong on the stimulus
Wrong on inflation
Wrong on Europe
Wrong on the euro
Wrong on Japan
Wrong on cb "money printing"
Wrong on oil
And even wrong on...HOUSING!!!
Mike Norman:
LOL!!! How's your wonder boy, Schiff, doing now?
I don't know, I'm still laughing at you in that video.
Quote: "No it isn't. The US dollar system is INVOLUNTARY, because we are forced to pay the state taxes in dollars."
State taxes in dollars doesn't make it involuntary? The dollars are IOUs from the Government. If you never wanted to the government redeem (tax) the IOU claims you are holding against it then just don't accept dollars or use any public services including the rights to employment within the country. As you soon as accept the dollars then you have agreed to be tax liable as those dollars are a legally binding claim on national product.
If you don't want a part of the national system of production then you can leave for North Korea or some other private Free Market State just like Ben Franklin suggested "require among the savages."
Septues7:
"State taxes in dollars doesn't make it involuntary?"
Is that a question or a statement? I said the US dollar system IS involuntary, because we are forced to pay state taxes in US dollars, even if we trade in non-dollar commodities.
"If you never wanted to the government redeem (tax) the IOU claims you are holding against it then just don't accept dollars or use any public services including the rights to employment within the country."
I am forced to pay taxes in US dollars even if I don't use any "public services." Even if I never summons anyone to court, even if I never dial 911, even if I never call the police, even if I never use a public road, even if I never have any kids and thus never use a public school, even if I do what I do with private businesses, and choose not to solicit their goods or services according to my liking, I STILL have to pay taxes for those "services."
"As you soon as accept the dollars then you have agreed to be tax liable as those dollars are a legally binding claim on national product."
I have to pay taxes in US dollars even if I don't accept US dollars. The IRS will simply charge me the US dollar "equivalent."
"If you don't want a part of the national system of production then you can leave for North Korea or some other private Free Market State just like Ben Franklin suggested "require among the savages."
Aaaaaand I win. When your only recourse is to declare the state having feudalist ownership over all land, then I win.
LOL!!! How's your wonder boy, Schiff, doing now?
I don't know, I'm still laughing at you in that video.
Okay, okay - everybody settle down. Regardless of how everyone feels about Mr. Norman's style, I think we can all agree that Peter Schiff is totally clueless.
not sure about that t shirt. Trump is a clown tho
"When your only recourse is to declare the state having feudalist ownership over all land, then I win"
The state creates the laws of the land. One of those laws at present is that (eligible) people and organsations have to pay taxes.
If you don't like the law, try to get it changed.
How are you going to do that?
Take part in the democratic process like everyone else.
As mater of fact, the state can exert ownership over land and does so frequently for a variety of reasons. Get caught dealing drugs out your house in the US, and the state can confiscate the RE. The state can also require owners to sell property at reasonable price against their wishes if public use trumps private use. The owners can sue in the courts in the US, but they often if not usually loose.
One can say argue it is not "right," but it is the law in many if not most jurisdictions, and while everyone is entitled to due process, courts often side with the state against owners.
Edmund:
Okay, okay - everybody settle down. Regardless of how everyone feels about Mr. Norman's style, I think we can all agree that Peter Schiff is totally clueless.
I don't know, the guy in that video I posted rolling his eyes, and laughing at the notion of housing problems, definitely seemed clueless.
y:
"When your only recourse is to declare the state having feudalist ownership over all land, then I win"
The state creates the laws of the land.
So what.
One of those laws at present is that (eligible) people and organsations have to pay taxes.
You're saying this like you just discovered it.
If you don't like the law, try to get it changed.
How are you going to do that?
Take part in the democratic process like everyone else.
I don't want my desires IMPOSED on anyone else. "Taking part in the democratic process" is taking part in a process whereby what I want for myself, is then transposed and forced on others.
I don't want to force my desires on others against their will. I merely want to be able to make my own choices for myself in peace, and that includes not paying taxes and not receiving a single government "service."
The Democratic process is inherently violent and coercive. I can only get what I want there if I am in the 51%, and only if I don't give a shit about those in the 49%.
@ Anonymous
Well, I guess you might as well head for a frontier or an outlaw area, or maybe an über-Libertarian community away from any national jurisdiction.
Anonymous:
Ok, I get that you want the law to be changed so that you don't have to pay taxes any more.
What I am asking you is how you are going to get the law changed.
Are you going to take up arms and revolt?
What are you going to do?
Tom Hickey:
"Well, I guess you might as well head for a frontier or an outlaw area, or maybe an über-Libertarian community away from any national jurisdiction."
The obligation to cease and desist "interacting" with unwilling parties is on the part of the non-owners, not the owners.
If I was travelling with a group of people, and we came across a socialist commune, and I was as arrogant and aggressive as a statesman and demanded that they hold me as their final authority in security and protection over that commune territory, and to pay me what I want them to pay me, and if they don't pay me and don't obey my final judgments, then I will demand that they leave, and if they refuse, then I will threaten them with violence, and if they still refuse to leave, then I will use violence against them and throw all dissenters into a cage, then surely you will see how my actions would be aggressive against the socialist territory owners.
Now suppose that instead of a socialist commune, there was instead a series of private property territories. Suppose that I approach the owners in the same way. My actions would still be aggressive.
Suppose I succeeded in my aggressive actions against the private property owners, and the owners were all intimidated into holding me as final authority. They end up paying me for my monopoly "protection." Suppose some years pass. Suppose I pass my powers onto others who have monopoly rule. Suppose in the future that the majority of private property owners start to impose their will on the minority of private property owners, through a group of territorial monopolist "representatives."
Suppose a private property owner who is in the minority says this whole set up is unjust, because it is a function of aggression, not consent. That the majority of people never had any "right" to impose their will and morality on those in the minority.
What you are saying to me right here and right now is that those who are in the minority simply have to OBEY the "representatives" of the majority.
You say "move" like it's the obligation of the owner (socialist communal part-owner or individual private property owner) to move away from their own land.
You say move away to someplace without monopoly gangs, but über-Libertarians already tried that during the 17th and 18th centuries in the US to become free from the British monarch's rule. Monopolists came in and wrecked the place.
--------------------
y:
"k, I get that you want the law to be changed so that you don't have to pay taxes any more."
AND I do not want to receive any "public services" either. Don't forget that part. I don't just want to stop paying taxes. I want to stop the violence based "state-citizen" relationship altogether, which of course includes a cessation of the state imposing its "services" as well.
"What I am asking you is how you are going to get the law changed."
I don't expect to get the law changed, because I am vastly, vastly outnumbered. My acting freely yet peacefully makes me a "criminal" in the eyes of those who tell me what to do with my own body and property.
"Are you going to take up arms and revolt?"
No, because I cannot physically compete with aircraft carriers, super sonic jets, and nuclear missile launching submarines. It would be suicide.
"What are you going to do?"
Educate.
Violent control cannot continue to exist if enough people are aware it is taking place. Most people don't even know the aggressively violent nature of the state. Me taking my small arms pistol and trying to stop the state from using force against me would be the most foolish thing I could ever do. Not only will I be impossibly outnumbered, but, if I'm not killed, I will almost certainly be branded a terrorist and almost certainly be sent to east Europe where I'll be tortured by psychopaths with badges. My family would almost certainly end up being harassed by patriotic psychos, my descendants would almost certainly be ridiculed and bullied by the brainwashed children of patriotic psychos.
My battle is not in the field. My battle is in the area of ideas, which influences people in a way that brings out the best of people for my benefit. Fighting physical battles influences people also, but in a way that brings out the worst in them and will not benefit me.
I'd rather live in a world of independent producers who do with their property what they want without my permission, than in a world where everyone is my slave and they won't do anything unless I tell them what to do.
Anonymous, that happens all the time and successful social experimenters have learned to stay under the radar by being transparent to friends and invisible to enemies. "Friend" is define as a person that has passed through the trust filter and shown the ability to be self-sufficient and to voluntarily cooperate for mutually benefit. "Enemy" is define as anyone who seeks to control others. So we are on the same page in that respect. The secret to avoiding detection by undesirables is camouflaging, establishing filters for access, and is staying decentralized and flexible in operations. It's very much a guerrilla strategy.
Now it would be nice if this were not necessary, but it is.
"What are you going to do?"
"Educate. Violent control cannot continue to exist if enough people are aware it is taking place."
So, you are going to educate until "enough people" share your understanding.
By "enough people" do you mean "enough people" to get the law changed?
Do you mean "enough people" to stage a revolution, or "enough people" to win elections and vote through changes to the law?
y:
I mean enough people to stage another intellectual revolution which will reveal to most what the state really is: an unnecessary gang of thieves writ large.
Revolution is going to happen violently or peacefully. Each form of statism can only give way to another form, or to abolition, since statism has internal contradictions.
Sorry, I thought you were posting to me. My bad.
Major Freedom,
So this revolution of yours, will it consist of overthrowing the government by force, defending your own territory against the government, or getting "enough people" to vote for your policies in elections?
Specifics would be appreciated, rather than the usual rhetoric about state violence, etc.
So this revolution of yours, will it consist of overthrowing the government by force, defending your own territory against the government, or getting "enough people" to vote for your policies in elections?
I am with Anonymous. Intellectual revolution is best. Violent revolutions result in deaths of innocent people, and elections are silly, because elections presuppose government.
Violent revolutions also tend to be rather volatile when it comes to the resulting structure, which makes it possible, and perhaps even likely, that the outcome will be even worse than what we have now.
When people's minds are educated with good ideas, then their actions will follow. Mindless violence is not the best way IMO.
Post a Comment