Tuesday, May 23, 2017

I am running for president in 2020. Please support my campaign.

Friends...



I am running for President of the United States in 2020 and I need your help. I am an MMT trained economist. The United States is a currency issuing nation and as such, we have no limits on the amount of money we can invest in ourselves and our citizenry. My presidency will spend to invest in infrastructure, health care for all, basic science and research, care for the elderly, alternative energy, protection of our environment, education and much more. Furthermore, I will work to rein in Wall St and curb speculation. Banks are agents of the government and should lend in the public purpose. We will end foreign wars and stop the Deep State and their desire for world domination and the wanton killing of millions for the profits of a few. We will normalize relations with Russia. America has no limits. We have no constraints. We can have equality for all and I will provide it. We are most certainly NOT "out of money." That is ludicrous. And the bankers and financiers who dominate our politics, they will be gone under my administration. I promise you. I know how to do it. I can do it in 90 days. Give me a chance.
Please go here to fund. Thank you.

Mike Norman

66 comments:

Ryan Harris said...

DO IT.

Penguin pop said...

Holy shit. I'm excited.

2016 woulda been the time to do it though, but I'm hoping in 2020, there will be way more alternatives out there to the current BS we have to deal with. It's not gonna be easy, Mike, but if you manage to change the paradigm in any way, it will have been worth it IMO. One more step to taking the power back.

Kaivey said...

You're telling me!

Dave said...

Damn Mike thats what I'm talking about! You will have to hire some bad hombres to provide security for you. But it will be a fun ride.

Get the Rock to be your running mate. Tom Hickey should be your campaign manager.



Tom Hickey said...

Woo hoo!

Tom Hickey said...

Posted to FD and Twitter.

Lede to my my FB share:

Mike is an MMT economist who is veteran of the financial sector. He has a solid grip on economic policy and what needs to be done to put the America back on its feet after years of neoliberal carnage.

In addition, he is also well versed in foreign affairs and foreign policy, and he opposes foreign adventurism.

Look forward to Mike sharing his ideas on how to right this ship that is now badly listing from decades of ill-conceived policy.

Please read and consider his statement below. I believe this is possible, but it requires a public mandate to do so. He will explain in the course of campaigning exactly what needs to be done toward achieving an ideal society, as well as how this is doable by lifting the ignorance surrounding the debate.

Disclosure: Mike is a friend and I am a contributor at Mike Norman Economics.

Matt Franko said...

"We are most certainly NOT out of money"

Mike you better then remove Mulvaney on day one !!! He just told a national audience we are...

MRW said...

B R A V O.

Ryan Harris said...

Promise, When you win don't appoint losers as leadership just because they are econ-famous or Wall-st popular.

Andrew Anderson said...

Banks are agents of the government Mike Norman

And that's a FIXABLE problem NOT A GIVEN!

and should lend in the public purpose. Mike Norman

Shall the richer STILL be the most so-called creditworthy of what is, in essence, the PUBLIC's CREDIT but for PRIVATE GAIN?

Why in Heaven's Name are the banks privileged by government in our so-called free market economy? Why can't they be 100% private with 100% voluntary depositors?

Tom Hickey said...

I think several things are needed.

1. An organized presentation of the MMT literature on various policy areas to provide as references to proposals and claims.

2. The outline at least of policy proposals for domestic policy that would be fleshed out as bills in the relevant areas.

3. A fairly detailed foreign policy overview wrt international relations and the use of the military, explaining the rationale for the proposals.

Andrew Anderson said...

One would think that MMT should be used to DE-PRIVILEDGE the banks, NOT perpetuate their ability to loot the poorer in favor of the richer.

I continue to be amazed at the stubborn defense of privileges for the banks.

intajake said...

@Andrew Anderson- have you come across mosler banking rules?

Andrew Anderson said...

Mostly 2nd hand via Neil Wilson's article.

But unlimited deposit insurance is exactly the wrong approach. Why should private banks be allowed to create liabilities that are then insured by the general public? Nor should banks be able to borrow from nor sell assets to the central bank; instead banks should have to borrow from and sell assets to the private sector. And if interest rates are deemed too high then distribute new fiat equally to all citizens to lower them.

There's a bit more to honest banking such as negative yielding sovereign debt that I've covered recently at http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2017/05/robin-ramsey-well-how-did-we-get-here.html

Warren Mosler, Neil Wilson, Yves Smith, and sad to say, Mike Norman should give a lot a thought to ethics in fiat and credit creation such as why the citizens may not use their Nation's fiat except for unsafe, inconvenient physical fiat but must instead work through a government privileged usury cartel?

Michael Norman said...

Andrew,

Government spending will supplant bank credit to a large degree.

Andrew Anderson said...

Then there's even less need for government privileges for the banks.

Besides, once government spending revives the economy sufficiently, the banks will just blow another bubble, won't they? Unless they're de-privileged so that bubble blowing is dangerous to banks because their liabilities wrt to the population are genuine liabilities, not a sham?

Really take on the banks, Mike. Banks are hated and rightly so and the population will rally behind you. Or if not, you will at least lay the groundwork for some future candidate to finally put those elitist, hypocritical bastards in their place.

Andrew Anderson said...

Besides, with Neil's "solution" we end up with robots doing almost all needed work, a few rich who own them, and the rest of us, except perhaps the old, children and the disabled, as wage slaves under a Job Guarantee which Neil has admitted is to keep people too busy to protest injustice.

Calgacus said...

Warren Mosler, Neil Wilson, Yves Smith, and sad to say, Mike Norman should give a lot a thought to ethics in fiat and credit creation.

Indeed, but so should everyone, including Andrew Anderson. A monetary system without a job guarantee is comically unethical. So people will always protest the injustice of such systems, which include yours, until system-makers decide to think about the ethics of their systems, instead of admiring themselves in a mirror. Philosophers who gave "a lot of thought to ethics in fiat and credit creation" realized the ethical necessity of the JG centuries ago.

MRW said...

Warren Mosler, Neil Wilson, Yves Smith, and sad to say, Mike Norman should give a lot a thought to ethics in fiat and credit creation such as why the citizens may not use their Nation's fiat except for unsafe, inconvenient physical fiat but must instead work through a government privileged usury cartel?

Andrew, I rarely, if ever, fire ad hominems on this site. I consider it mean and unnecessary; furthermore, the sign of an undisciplined mind incapable of reason or any attempt at balance.

But there are occasions when it is necessary. This is such a time.

As a Brit, you don’t have a goddam clue about the US banking system and why it was invented the way it was. You have zero historical understanding of the effect of panics on ordinary people in the 1800s—especially the 1893 Panic—that led to the Federal Reserve Act to preserve the edict to provide for the “general welfare” of the people which our federal government is constitutionally mandated to produce. It is in the Preamble to our US Constitution.

You have failed to do your homework reading the reams of historical evidence available in the Congressional Record starting in 1900 with Robert Owens testimony (he’s the guy who wrote the 1913 Federal Reserve Act contrary to conspiracists like G Edward Griffin of The Creature from Jekyll Island fame—Representative Glass had nothing to do with it), and ending with Representative Patman’s testimony in 1947. I have. I spent four years purchasing, researching and reading every document. So much so that I corrected the St Louis Fed’s historical evidence, and they thanked me for it. They had no clue.

In short, you’re a fucking idiot. Go peddle your bullshit some place else.

MRW said...

It was the globally destructive 1893 Panic, NOT THE 1907 PANIC that led to the creation of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. Senator Robert Owen was instrumental. His month-long October 1913 Senate hearings with over 500 country-wide business witnesses--I read all this shit, volumes of it--convinced President Wilson to go with Owen over Glass's June 1913 slimy pro-NY bankers' bill. Owens rewrote the bill in November and the first two weeks of December and Wilson signed that puppy into law on December 23, 1913. Fait accompli.

Andrew Anderson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Andrew Anderson said...

Actually MRW, the US has NEVER had 100% private banks with 100% voluntary depositors since that would require ALL of below:
1) A central bank or equivalent service provided by the US Treasury.
2) Freely available risk-free accounts and transactions in fiat at said service for all citizens, their businesses (including banks), organizations, etc for free or at cost so that no citizen would ever be limited to mere physical fiat, aka "cash", or forced to use a bank.
3) Inexpensive fiat, e.g. no precious metal standard, no government recognition of anything but its own fiat as money.
4) 0 to negative yielding sovereign debt including the most negative interest on account balances at the central bank beyond an individual citizen exemption of say, in 2017 dollars, $250,000.
5) No other privileges for depository institutions including a lender of last resort and government provided deposit insurance.

So, since the US started off with government privileges for the banks, e.g. the lack of 1) and 2), it's no wonder they've been troublesome ever since. Otoh, those who've used the Postal Savings Service, for example, have never lost a penny.

So the US has NEVER had ethical fiat and credit creation. So it can't be said to have failed.

Andrew Anderson said...

Calgacus,

The Hebrews had guaranteed jobs as well-fed slaves in Egypt but God had a better idea: family owned farms, vineyards, and orchards that could not be lost for more than 50 years (see Leviticus 25). And the Promised Land was at the very crossroads of the world - a land bridge connecting Africa, Asia and Europe so it was often contested but the Hebrew way of life endured because it produced independent, rugged people who overthrew oppressor after oppressor (see Book of Judges).

So what do you want? Well-fed wage slaves or a population to be proud of? As US citizens used to be before the banks stole their farms, businesses, and the commons?

MRW said...

1) A central bank or equivalent service provided by the US Treasury.

WRONG.

MRW said...

2) Freely available risk-free accounts and transactions in fiat at said service for all citizens, their businesses (including banks), organizations, etc for free or at cost so that no citizen would ever be limited to mere physical fiat, aka "cash", or forced to use a bank.

YOU’RE AN IDIOT. OUR US BANKS PROTECT THE PAYMENT SYSTEM AND THE CITIZENS USE OF IT.

MRW said...

3) Inexpensive fiat, e.g. no precious metal standard, no government recognition of anything but its own fiat as money.

FIAT (AS YOU INSIST ON DESCRIBING IT) IS THE US UNIT OF ACCOUNT. PERIOD, BUB.

MRW said...

4) 0 to negative yielding sovereign debt including the most negative interest on account balances at the central bank beyond an individual citizen exemption of say, in 2017 dollars, $250,000.

$250,000 IS THE US FDIC PROTECTED ACCOUNT BALANCE. SO WHAT’S YOUR POINT?

MRW said...

5) No other privileges for depository institutions including a lender of last resort and government provided deposit insurance.

DEPOSIT INSURANCE IN THE US IS NOT” GOVERNMENT PROVIDED.” IT IS ONLY BANK PROVIDED. US BANKS PAY FOR DEPOSIT INSURANCE.

Ignacio said...

A.A. you sure it has NEVER had those? Great part of the banking system during large parts of the XVIII-XIX centuries was set up like that, although they had certain requirements, like deposit of gold at state banks and where granted special charters to "print de moneh!" then. But citizens where using private bank paper as currency (this happened in other ex-Brit colonies too like Australia, which was even more of a 'free banking' system).

Is no coincidence that the system evolved in parallel in several countries too in a similar manner as central governments were more established and consolidated.

Some libertarians/"austrians" love this free banking system. I find that period of finance history "fascinating" (in tandem with other events of the time which shaped the financial system).

Tom Hickey said...

It was the globally destructive 1893 Panic, NOT THE 1907 PANIC that led to the creation of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act.

Additionally, it seems like the 1907 Panic convinced the bankers to sign on to it to get a liquidity guarantee for submitting to bank regulation.

Kristjan said...

Go for It Mike.

Andrew Anderson said...

Ignacio,

Austrians do not believe in 100% private banks with 100% voluntary depositors since they, for example, seek to eliminate the central bank rather than allow all citizens to have accounts there. This means they do not wish citizens to be able to use their Nation's fiat (except for unsafe, inconvenient physical fiat) but be forced to use banks instead.

As for libertarians, they should realize that true free banking REQUIRES that citizens be allowed to use their Nation's fiat in a safe, convenient manner via accounts of their own at the central bank or equivalent. This we've never truly had in the US though for a while the Postal Saving's Service provided limited services to the public.

I'll also mention that Progressives often wish to (unintentionally, I suppose) poison pill a government-provided fiat accounting and transaction service by requiring that it make loans and pay interest. But both violate equal protection under the law in favor of the most so-called credit worthy in the case of loans and those with the larger deposits in the case of positive interest.

Ryan Harris said...

Running for that NY Senate seat might be easier and cheaper --Even this is a lot of work. I wonder if Mike knows what he is in for.

Calgacus said...

AA: History, fairy tales or accurate is no substitute for the thought you rightly called for. If there is money, meaningful money, which under your scheme should basically be from the state only, there has to be a way for people to earn money. Yes or no?

This has nothing to do with family farms etc. which are just a way of avoiding the obvious questions. As is speaking of wage slaves. Money without something caricaturable as "wage-slavery" (= actions which money is used to measure the value of) is a logical impossibility, just as speaking of credit without debt or money without credit=debt are.

Andrew Anderson said...

there has to be a way for people to earn money. Yes or no? Calgacus

No, unless you consider living off assets and rents as the wealthy do is earning money. If so then why can't we all do so? Especially when robots are, in the not so distant future, doing almost all needed labor?

And since a large part of wealth has been unjustly acquired by, for instance, the crooked fiat and credit creation system then where is your call for asset redistribution? Beginning with, as a part of necessary reform, the proper abolition of government-provided deposit insurance?


Schofield said...

Hmmm! The key to Mike's success will be a very smart media team playing on the twin themes that Obama and Trump have proved to be useless in addressing America's problems and those who tell you that the US government can't simultaneous create its own money whilst restraining inflation are the morally corrupt and greedy 1%.

Andrew Anderson said...

and those who tell you that the US government can't simultaneous create its own money whilst restraining inflation are the morally corrupt and greedy 1%. Schofield

One way to restrain inflation is to increase the demand for fiat by:
1) Allowing all citizens to use fiat via accounts of their own at the Federal Reserve.
2) Abolishing government-provided deposit insurance.
3) The simultaneous sale of non-sovereign* assets by the Fed to soak up even more fiat.

Then you'll see the banks scramble to acquire the needed reserves for the xfer of at least some currently insured deposits with banks to inherently risk-free accounts at the Fed. Then the banks will welcome deficit spending to provide the new fiat needed.

Andrew Anderson said...

*Sovereign assets, being risk-free, should yield AT MOST 0% to avoid welfare proportionate to wealth, not need.

Bill J said...

That's great Mike. Have you formulated position on ELR? Safeguards against abuse/fraud in administrating such a thing.

Also what about basic income risk of subsidizing employers/low wages.

Trade policy? Social tariff on imports?

Encourage pr discourage industrialization in developing nations? 10 billion people with USA living standard seems unwise. Equality sounds nice but unless we're talking equally poor, it would be a resource consumption nightmare with a baby boom en route to 20 billion. At some point reality/sustainability comes in.

How spread prosperity without līmiting fertility in cultures that don't family plan?

Do you support public domain for pharmaceutical patents, with a cash reward system for breakthroughs?

How manage debt forgiveness without too much distortion to market prices and asset values?

The big elephant in room between right and left and labor... immigration/culture. Do you have a position?

Running to win or running to educate?

Much of the problem is just process/administrative restrictions on the executive ....

Do you support income caps? Wealth caps? How ban lobbying without restricting legitimate interests from supporting their candidates?

How stop campaign finance abuse without ending up with 10k candidates on debate stage?

Do you like idea of global guerrillas on a social app based campaign platform.

Just some thoughts...

MRW said...

Abolishing government-provided deposit insurance

For the second time on this thread: DEPOSIT INSURANCE IN THE US IS NOT “GOVERNMENT PROVIDED.”

US COMMERCIAL BANKS PAY FOR DEPOSIT INSURANCE. They organize it, they run it. The US federal government does not pay for it. That's why there is a limit on the amount covered.

Warren Mosler thinks the federal government should cover it, and there should be no limit; hence, one of the big reasons for treasury securities goes away.

Andrew Anderson said...

US COMMERCIAL BANKS PAY FOR DEPOSIT INSURANCE. MRW

It's well understood that the FDIC has the implicit backing of the Federal Reserve since premiums would be prohibitive to truly cover the systemic crisis the government privileged usury cartel drags the country into recurrently. To fix that, the Federal Reserve should be absolutely forbidden to create fiat EXCEPT for the US Treasury.

As for Treasury securities, they are useful for the purpose of fiat sterilization and thus central bank credibility but, of course, they should yield no more than 0% to avoid welfare proportional to wealth.

Andrew Anderson said...

To fix that, the Federal Reserve should be absolutely forbidden to create fiat EXCEPT for the US Treasury. aa

Of course this isn't the total solution since if US citizens are still forced to use private banks instead of being allowed inherently risk-free accounts of their own at the central bank, Congress would just appropriate another TARP to save the banks once again.

It's time we quit being a Nation of, by and for a government privileged usury cartel.

MRW said...

Andrew,

It's well understood that the FDIC has the implicit backing of the Federal Reserve since premiums would be prohibitive to truly cover the systemic crisis the government privileged usury cartel drags the country into recurrently.

You don’t know what you are talking about. You haven’t done the work to make your supposition of "it is well understood." Zero work; even less understanding. This was tested in 2008.

MRW said...

Andrew,

To fix that, the Federal Reserve should be absolutely forbidden to create fiat EXCEPT for the US Treasury.

The Federal Reserve does not create treasury securities (cash equivalent). The US Treasury does. The Federal Reserve can only purchase or sell treasury securities on the open market.

The Federal Reserve does not create physical cash. The Bureau of Printing and Engraving—a division of the US Treasury—does.

Andrew Anderson said...

The Federal Reserve does not create treasury securities (cash equivalent). The US Treasury does. MRW

Well, duh! Who doesn't know that?

However, the Federal Reserve does create fiat via the Discount Window, Open Market Purchases, currency swaps and interest on reserves (IOR).

You're being tedious, MRW. Better trolls, please.



MRW said...

Andrew,

To fix that, the Federal Reserve should be absolutely forbidden to create fiat EXCEPT for the US Treasury.

The Federal Reserve does not create treasury securities (cash equivalent). The US Treasury does. The Federal Reserve can only purchase or sell treasury securities through Primary Dealers (after the US Treasury issues them) on the open market.

The Federal Reserve does not create physical cash. The Bureau of Printing and Engraving—a division of the US Treasury—does.

The Federal Reserve can only purchase or sell treasury securities on the open market.

AFTER THE US TREASURY HAS ISSUED THE TREASURY SECURITIES PER CURRENT OR PREVIOUS CONGRESSIONAL VOTE/EDICT. Read the Daily Treasury Statement.

Andrew Anderson said...

The Federal Reserve can only purchase or sell treasury securities on the open market. MRW

Pardon me for glossing over details that should be abolished or modified anyway, e.g. sovereign debt should not be sold for positive yields anyway except perhaps directly to the Federal Reserve by the US Treasury.

MRW said...

Andrew,

However, the Federal Reserve does create fiat via the Discount Window, Open Market Purchases, currency swaps and interest on reserves (IOR).

None of these activities change the amount of net financial assets ($NFA) in the system.

You don’t understand the difference between credit creation (which every US citizen participates in when he or she uses a credit card, for example) and creating new interest-free USD.

MRW said...

Andrew,

e.g. sovereign debt should not be sold for positive yields anyway except perhaps directly to the Federal Reserve by the US Treasury.

It’s currently against the law.

MRW said...

Andrew,

Pardon me for glossing over details that should be abolished or modified anyway

What you think of it has nothing to do with how it is currently done.

Andrew Anderson said...

None of these activities change the amount of net financial assets ($NFA) in the system.
MRW

I said they create new fiat, nothing more.

More honest trolls, please.

MRW said...

Andrew,

e.g. sovereign debt should not be sold for positive yields anyway except perhaps directly to the Federal Reserve by the US Treasury.

It became the law of the land in 1914 under the gold standard when the federal government sought to protect the gold supply from hoarding. It needed all the gold it had for international payments in sending, feeding, and provisioning, troops overseas.

The USG sought to prevent people from using 20 one-dollars bills to buy an ounce of gold (which the back of the USD gave them the right to do).

So the USG invented Liberty Bonds and a phony patriotism that citizens were “helping to pay for the war” by buying these bonds. They offered interest, which gold did not do.

After WWI, and because of the popularity of the Liberty Bonds, the issuance of treasury securities continued to this day.

(Government Bonds were available in the 1890s. JP Morgan told his clients then that government bonds were “better than gold.”)

MRW said...

I said they create new fiat, nothing more. THEY DON'T.

Andrew Anderson said...

THEY DON'T. MRW

So you don't consider bank reserves fiat, MRW?

MRW said...

Of course, I do. But you don't have a clear understanding of how they are created, or why, and I don't have the time to explain it. Untaxed government spending (deficit spending) creates reserves in the banking system. (It's the "reserve add.") Suggest you read Warren Mosler's book Soft Currency Economics II.

Andrew Anderson said...

Of course, I do. But you don't have a clear understanding of how they are created, or why, and I don't have the time to explain it. MRW

So now your story changes from "THEY DON'T" to I don't have a clear understanding of why they do? Liar much? Any stick to beat a dog, including lies?

Untaxed government spending (deficit spending) creates reserves in the banking system. (It's the "reserve add.") MRW

Yes and so does Open Market Purchases of private assets (QE), loans from the Discount Window and Interest on Reserves.

It appears your understanding is lacking, not mine.





MRW said...

QE is an asset swap. Reserves-->treasury securities-->QE: .back to reserves. No new reserves created.

From Mosler’s book, “The Fed uses repos to buy securities, adding reserves to the system until the funds rate falls back to the desired level. When the funds rate dips below the prescribed rate the Fed sells securities with reverse repos, which drain reserves from the banking system, until the funds rate climb to the target rate. The Fed uses the repo market to manage the daily level of reserves in the banking system….” They don’t create new reserves—only the US Treasury can do that—they add or subtract them with Repurchase Agreement (repos) or Matched-sale purchase transactions (MSPs).

Loans from the Discount Window are not new reserves, ditto interest on reserves.

hog said...

However, the Federal Reserve does create fiat via the Discount Window, Open Market Purchases, currency swaps and interest on reserves (IOR).

it's broad money creation that drives increases in reserves, while vast increases in reserves do not boost broad money creation, so I don't think it's appropriate to paint the federal reserve as an entity that does the money creating.
none of the actions you mentioned (with the exception of interest payments) even constitute net financial asset creation anyways.

perhaps it's more appropriate to think of the federal reserve system primarily functioning as a clearing system.

Andrew Anderson said...

They most certainly are NEW reserves as far as the banks are concerned. Bank reserves, except for vault cash, are simply central bank liabilities and like commercial bank liabilities they are both CREATED, i.e. "new", when issued and DESTROYED when the central bank receives them back.


Andrew Anderson said...

so I don't think it's appropriate to paint the federal reserve as an entity that does the money creating. hog

The only reason fiat (except for physical fiat) is not part of the money supply is that the population may not even use their Nation's fiat except for aforementioned physical fiat.

Instead, we are forced to work through a government privileged usury cartel or be limited to unsafe, inconvenient physical fiat, a.k.a. "cash".

Andrew Anderson said...

except for vault cash aa

Strike this since central bank notes (e.g. Federal Reserve Notes) ARE liabilities of the central bank.

Tom Hickey said...

Reserve balances exist only in the payments system and they are Fed liabilities, as are Federal Reserve notes. FR notes in bank's vault cash count as bank reserves along with reserve balances in the payments system. FR notes in circulation are part of the M1 money supply.

Treasury securities are Treasury liabilities.

When the Treasury "spends" that is pays invoices or makes transfer payments, Treasury directs the Fed as the government's bank to credit the relevant deposit accounts.

The Fed credits the reserve accounts of those whose deposit accounts are to be credited, and the relevant banks credit the relevant deposit accounts.

The Treasury has the reserve to spend either from taxation or issuing tsys. The Treasury does not issue reserves. Only the Fed does.

When reserve balances are increased by Treasury spending, $NFA (aggregate nongovernment net financial assets) are increased. Taxes extinguish reserves and the Fed credits the TGA, but not with reserves. There are no reserves in the TGA, only credits that the Treasury can use in spending, which only become reserves when credited to banks' reserve accounts by the Fed at the Treasuries direction.

When the Fed does repo it just switches tsys it holds as assets for reserves in banks' reserve accounts and then switches back for reverse repo. These operations alter the composition of $NFA but not the amount.

Calgacus said...

AA:No, unless you consider living off assets and rents as the wealthy do is earning money. If so then why can't we all do so? Especially when robots are, in the not so distant future, doing almost all needed labor?

AA, it seems you are basically calling for a non-monetary economy. Your positions are so - idiosyncratic - that I am trying to establish some common ground, I am trying to talk about a world that looks anything like the real one right now, even the real world with your proposals put into place. If you want to abolish money, why not say so, instead of all that stuff about deposit insurance etc?

So bringing up robots etc is just avoiding the question. What do you mean by living off assets & rents? Do you mean acquiring money? Then your answer to my question is yes, I think, which is all I wanted at this point.

I mean I hope you could eventually see the ludicrous injustice in a money-using society that does not guarantee jobs, far more injustice than anything treated in your proposals. I could give you answers to your other questions, but getting agreement on a rhetorical question is a first step. And are your proposals really so worthwhile if magic robots will do everything so soon? If they need a magic robot army to defeat simple arguments?

To rephrase it: For there to be meaningful money - let's agree it is basically issued by the state - in the economy, there has to be some way for the money to get into the economy, into somebody's hands. Yes or no?

Waiting to see if you figure out a way to say no to that. :-)

Andrew Anderson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Andrew Anderson said...

Taxes extinguish reserves and the Fed credits the TGA, but not with reserves. Tom Hickey

Reserves (except for vault cash) are simply account balances at the central bank when the account owner is a private depository institution, a.k.a. a "bank." Since the US Treasury is not a bank then its account balance cannot be called "reserves", is all you're saying. Likewise, when citizens are finally allowed accounts of their own at the central bank, neither shall their account balances be called "reserves" though they would be identical in form to bank reserves.

There are no reserves in the TGA, only credits that the Treasury can use in spending, which only become reserves when credited to banks' reserve accounts by the Fed at the Treasuries direction. Tom Hickey

So the credits in the TGA are simply the TGA account balance at the central bank, same as bank reserves except for the name.

Andrew Anderson said...

These operations alter the composition of $NFA but not the amount. Tom Hickey

You're ignoring the profit or loss to the bank, no?

But in any case, the ethical way to provide liquidity to the economy would be equal fiat distributions to all citizens.

Those fiat distributions could be financed with overt monetization or (my preference) negative yielding sovereign debt including the most negative yield (interest) on private sector account balances* at the central bank.

*Except for a $250,000 or so individual citizen exemption.