|
Just a note about why Dollars have value since it's been mentioned a few times already. The general understanding is that dollars have value because you are taxed in dollars. The government won't accept your 15% of your sheep wool as your tax payment thus you are forced into the market to exchange your wool for dollars to make your tax payment. If you don't make your tax payments for a long enough period of the time the state will come and lock you up. As long as the state can require its taxes be paid via force it can maintain its currency's value.
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2019 22:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 08:25 |
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Man, being able to pay taxes in bushels of wheat, amphorae of oil, or bales of sheep wool was the best. I miss the good old days. Yeah, an unfortunate side effect is what Marx called Commodity Fetishizaiton. By being force to exchange the product of your labor into money which you then use to buy something else you start to lose track of the social relationships of production. You think of the value of goods in relation to the value of other goods instead of the human relationships of who makes what and who works for whom.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2019 23:24
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:Replace all currency wit teef New money would be more valuable than old money. There would be a market where you could buy new money with your old bills but your 2019 dollar would cost the 2015 dollar plus inflation over the intervening period. Whoever is operating this market would probably charge a fee and thus someone would be siphoning money off of anyone wishing to save.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2019 03:16
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Under the status quo, the ability to control the money supply rests with the Federal Reserve, unelected technocrats whose primary responsibility is to ensure the stability of the economy. Since congress cannot print money, their ambition to please their donors and constituents is constrained by their ability to collect revenue and borrow money. If we ran the government the way MMT enthusiasts are advocating, the power to control the money supply would rest with Congress instead of the Fed. Given the incentives on Congresspeople, do you understand why this would be a problem? Especially since this would remove one of the Fed's major tools for stabilizing the economy? In this scenario, what constrains Congressional spending? The Fed continually takes actions that are of greater benefit to the capital class. Their dual-mandate is full-employment and inflation control. Except they primarily focus on the 2nd part and don't give a poo poo about anything but the U3 number (if they really even do that). A bit of inflation is good for debtors since it eats away at the principal of the lone. Appealing to the Fed is questionable at best.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2019 18:55
|
|