Monday, July 22, 2013

"Here’s what could make or break Abe’s reform plan"

Commentary by Roger Erickson

Warren Mosler writes: "Seriously! :( [To fund public initiative for the nation of Japan] it's crucial that [their PM] pushes ahead with plans to raise a controversial consumption tax "

quoted from: Here’s what could make or break Abe’s reform plan

Hey, the fiat's gotta come from SOMEWHERE, right? :(

After all, fiat doesn't just grow on citizens! Nor Public Initiative, being the same thing.

Ya gotta wonder who first decided that public initiative - aka, fiat - was something we had to get from someone else in order to have. By the way, Peter Peterson offers public fiat, for a fee! So where did HE get our fiat, to sell to us? He prefers that you don't ask - supposedly to "avoid confusion".

According to accountants, our original debt started with the Big Bang debt event! One has to smell shamans or an orthodox economics priesthood at work here, touting an original debt-sin.

How else do you justify an industry that's more trouble than it's worth? Well?? Any theories? :)

They have to invent something!  They may be killing us, but you DO have to wonder about the chutzpah of parasites that parasitize even themselves!  Who knew that self-assisted group suicide was a protection racket? Priests and accountants and investment bankers throughout history, that's who. Oh, and their latest orthodox economics priestly order too.

We're all anti authoritarian-theists now, if we want to survive. There's always yet another Age of Reason unfolding, but only if we allow reason to be extended. That requires acknowledging emerging operations and exploring emerging options, not letting deranged shamans dictate which few public options we're allowed to explore, based on their presumptions. Orthodox shamanism has no shame, unless we apply it. Without feedback, frauds will always take just as much as they can get away with.

Viva la Public Initiative, including enough initiative to ignore deranged shamans. :)


Anonymous said...

"Abe must show that his fiscal expansion plan is credible by enacting a fiscal contraction."

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

"Ya gotta wonder who first decided that public initiative - aka, fiat - was something we had to get from someone else in order to have".

Fiat is basically a piece of paper you give to someone in exchange for something which has more value than a piece of paper.

You can always convince people to give you valuable things in exchange for the piece of paper if you tell them that they need the piece of paper to pay an obligatory tax.

However, you can't always convince people to give you valuable things (in exchange for the piece of paper) beyond the value of that tax obligation.

What you are doing at that point is asking them to invest in the piece of paper - i.e. to give you valuable things in exchange for something which doesn't necessarily have a value to anyone.

You are asking them (and by 'them' I mean people in general) to 'save'. i.e. to accumulate your pieces of paper for no other reason than to hold them as a security.

At that point - when you ask someone to exchange valuable things for your piece of paper even though no-one actually needs them to pay taxes - you are asking them to give you something which you do not currently have a legal right to.

By this I mean that their acceptance of the piece of paper is not determined by the fact that they owe you something by law (i.e. taxes).

Instead, you are asking them to 'invest' in your paper, and to give you something in return for your debt.

Correct me if I'm wrong

googleheim said...



Tom Hickey said...

@ y

The tax obligation is sufficient to create demand for the payment token, but not necessary. If the payment token is used beyond a tax token, then there is likely to be an economic reason, especially if there is no further legal reason, like legal tender laws that mandate acceptance.

The non-tax reasons can be viewed in essence as convenience and security. The first results from lower transaction cost and the second from lower risk. There is a tradeoff between these.

For instance, take the use of Bitcoin in international transaction. There is greater convenience since no exchange rate transaction fee is involved and no bank servie fee. There is also greater security in the sense of privacy. But there could be less security in terms of currency stability due to exchange volatility. But overall, I'd say Bitcoin is well positioned for a lot of international use, even though there is no tax obligation involved in demand for it.

Could something like Bitcoin compete with national currencies. We are already seeing that in the undeveloped world for a variety of reasons that make digital currency more attractive.

However, Bitcoin is only valuable at present owing to its exchangeability for national currencies, against which is value is measured. That could change with broader and deeper use.