Because Trump will not accept their munnie, they will never trust Trump's commitment. Many remaining ignorant of the concept of unmerited favor (as likewise 'debt-free money').
Sheldon Adelson―who distrusts Trump's commitment to Israel―nonetheless rejected appeals from anti-Trump super PACs. https://t.co/3NHLpzOShd
— Kenneth P. Vogel (@kenvogel) February 24, 2016
Never will they be able to just take Trump at his mere word as here:
TRUMP'S PROMISE: "But if I win, Israel WILL be protected. That I can tell you." https://t.co/wHejf50DYa pic.twitter.com/cCKoxiPBz2
— slone (@slone) February 21, 2016
Manifest ignorance of grace being illustrated within mankind.
7 comments:
That aren't concerned with Israel being protected. That is is prior agreements and is long-standing US policy. The issue is over who will be POTUS, the person that Americans elect of Bibi.
Should be "or" rather than "of."
Well let's watch this a wait and see Tom...
Doesnt look like he needs their munnie for the Primaries at this point but maybe he takes some for the General...
If he takes some for the General, then we would see a complete change of tone wrt Trump I'd surmise...
Matt, there is no such thing, can be no such thing as "debt-free money". An "unmerited favor" is not "debt-free" since it is / represents a favor, which can somehow be called in, or it is not a favor. That phrase is imho an excellent way to spread ignorance; eventually people will wake up and realize what they are saying, but the enormous resistance to basic MMT, Mitchell-Innes & their straightforward application of common usage & dictionary meanings of words to economics is remarkable. Cf Eric Lonergan's recent confused posts. On the plus side he worked hard enough to say flatly, obviously crazily wrong things - although he didn't notice that. Most people talk about money in a way which is "not even wrong."
Calg,
Favors by definition cannot be called in, DEBTS can be called in they are two different things...
You are taking the textbook Old Testament 101 approach, suggest go back and read Paul's letter to Rome...
"for you are not under law, but under grace." Rom 6:14
"Now if it is in grace, it is no longer out of works, else the grace is coming to be no longer grace. Now, if it is out of works, it is no longer grace, else the work is no longer work." Rom 11:6
"Now to the worker, the wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as a debt." Rom 4:4
Manifestly 'debt' is JUST THE OPPOSITE of unmerited favor or 'grace' ie 'grace' IS the definition of 'debt-free'...
There certainly CAN be debt-free "money"... and there can be debt-based "money"... the word "money" is a figure of speech derived from the name of the goddess from the old pagan Roman pantheon in her role as the protectress of funds.... figures of speech provide some efficiency in the use of our language but that is traded off for ambiguity and they are not proper to be used in technocratic activities as proper terminology...
Wray's big debate club he is running on "what is money!?" is a complete waste of time circle jerk to any minimally competent technocrat... "what is money!?" is mental masturbation...
So if you are saying that "money" CAN BE 'debt-based' then yes it can, but it also CAN BE 'debt-free'... wiki Figures of Speech they are ambiguous...
Here is Augustus from his autobiographical epitaph:
"when the taxes fell short, I gave out contributions of grain and nomisma from my granary and patrimony,"
http://classics.mit.edu/Augustus/deeds.html
To WHOM DID HE OWE A DEBT for this issuance from his patrimony? The Chinese? His grandchildren? Hello they are not born yet.... Augustus patrimony was handed down from his father as unmerited favor or grace... ie the 'money' at least was DEBT-FREE...
We of the nations are NOT Israelites... we understand unmerited favor... and we can understand debt-free 'money'..
Favors by definition cannot be called in, DEBTS can be called in they are two different things... No, they aren't different, and that is not a distinction between the two.
If one uses the words "money" and "debt" and "favor" as they are commonly used in English, as they are defined in dictionaries, there never was and never will be money that is not debt = credit = liability = (financial) asset = favor. Of course this is using the universally understood primary definition of debt = favor = promise = moral relationship, not any unimportant secondary definition to do with money, finance or interest, or terms etc.
I said somehow "called in" or "redeemed". A favor which can not ever be called in / redeemed in any way is no favor at all. It is useless and worthless, a nonfavor, by that stipulation. It isn't "grace", which is not really relevant to the discussion. It is nothing.
Money, debt etc are not particularly ambiguous, at least if one uses the words according to the dictionary = MMT meaning. Maybe you've said before, but what you mean by "figure of speech" is completely obscure to me.
There is a fantastic resistance to using these words properly, the way that everyone uses them in every sphere but the formal economic sphere. In this economic sphere people use incoherent definitions consciously, but unconsciously they rely on the correct meanings, the normal English (or French or Chinese or whatever) meanings. The problem with economics is that everyone naturally understands it so well that they can pretend to themselves that they are using the craziest theories, and make something very simple fantastically complicated & wrong.
To WHOM DID HE OWE A DEBT for this issuance from his patrimony?
Whoever held the nomisma - money. This money was / represented a favor owed, a debt, which is why it was valuable. The "unmerited" has nothing to do with it. Issuance of money = indebting oneself. Whether the holder "merits" the money has nothing to do with it - maybe he found it on the ground or stole it.
Note that Augustus did not owe anybody a "debt-for" the money issuance. The money he issued was itself the debt. "Debt-for" and "Debt-based" are a clear sign of confusion. Money is never "debt-based", it is debt. Debts are never "debts-for", they're always "debts-to". (Which can and usually are incurred "for" some reason, like a transferal of a good, but that doesn't make the "debts-for" that good).
Like I've said before, MMT is saying utterly trivial things (like the finest mathematics and mathematicians) but if you don't say them clearly, experience shows everyone ends up saying utterly, trivially, ridiculously false things.
Post a Comment