The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
MODERN MONETARY THEORY is tcr. Taxes have nothing to do with govt spending.
Poast new message in this thread
Date: May 22nd, 2026 5:19 AM Author: oomox Well they're indirectly related because Congress pretends like they're related and uses limited tax revenue as an excuse not to do anything to make our lives better.
But the government just prints money to do war and bank bailouts and whatever else it wants, it's honestly so obvious. But They don't want us to know. It's very fringe, almost nonexistent, in academia. |
Date: May 22nd, 2026 4:25 PM Author: oomox (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5868038&forum_id=2�#49894648) |
|
Date: May 22nd, 2026 4:34 PM Author: Richard Ames Explain how this means that MMT is tcr. As far as I understand it, MMT is completely retarded and detached from the mechanical reality of raising federal debt. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5868038&forum_id=2�#49894676) |
 |
Date: May 22nd, 2026 4:40 PM Author: oomox MMT says governments that issue their own currency can (and do) just do whatever they want as far as spending and printing money, with limitations coming from how they think the amount of money in circulation will affect everything on a macro scale.
It says that they collect taxes just to take money out of circulation to manage inflation. They're totally inverting it and lying when they pretend that tax revenue directly limits how much money the government can spend. |
|
Date: May 22nd, 2026 4:46 PM Author: Richard Ames This feels generally only true because of the petrodollar and our war machine. If not for the petrodollar, we would have real constraints on our ability to endlessly print money IMO. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5868038&forum_id=2�#49894694) |
|
Date: May 22nd, 2026 4:56 PM Author: oomox This was my impression too but MMT says they're not related in that way.
"From a foreign exchange/relations point of view, the fact that the United States is the “petrodollar” has important implications. From a domestic point of view, however, the petrodollar makes little difference to the United States’ capacity to provide for its people or the domestic value of the dollar. [...] [O]il does not, in fact, give the US dollar its value. The primary thing that gives it (and the pound, yen, yuan, $CA, $AU, etc.) value is the government’s ability to impose a tax in its currency." – https://activistmmt.org/reserve-currency
Not that so much of the world being dependent on the petrodollar isn't significant... but it's separate from the way the ruling class plays around with our currency here. |
|
Date: May 22nd, 2026 5:02 PM Author: Richard Ames MMT is completely retarded. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5868038&forum_id=2�#49894731) |
|
Date: May 22nd, 2026 5:04 PM Author: oomox (guy who doesn't want to let go of his precious orthodoxy) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5868038&forum_id=2�#49894733) |
|
Date: May 22nd, 2026 5:08 PM Author: Richard Ames "From a foreign exchange/relations point of view, the fact that the United States is the “petrodollar” has important implications. From a domestic point of view, however, the petrodollar makes little difference to the United States’ capacity to provide for its people or the domestic value of the dollar. [...] [O]il does not, in fact, give the US dollar its value. The primary thing that gives it (and the pound, yen, yuan, $CA, $AU, etc.) value is the government’s ability to impose a tax in its currency." – https://activistmmt.org/reserve-currency
Some MMT faggot stating that oil doesn't give the US dollar its value doesn't mean it is true. Posting some faggot MMT blog is not an argument. |
|
Date: May 22nd, 2026 5:26 PM Author: oomox It's not saying it doesn't give it its value internationally, I don't think. It's just saying the petrodollar is not what makes it so that the U.S. government can just arbitrarily determine how much of its self-issued currency is in circulation. It says that the petrodollar system is a SYMPTOM of American economic and military hegemony, not the reason we're able to do the spending we do.
I'm sure you know more than I do about the international implications of other countries' dependence on the petrodollar. That's not at odds with this theory. Just the causality you hypothesized is. |
|
Date: May 22nd, 2026 5:12 PM Author: The Facebook i almost made this poast like word for word this morning. if you think taxes are about "paying for things" you deserve completely what you get. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5868038&forum_id=2�#49894751) |
|
Date: May 22nd, 2026 5:29 PM Author: icanseemyneurons What am I getting (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5868038&forum_id=2�#49894779) |
|
Date: May 22nd, 2026 5:29 PM Author: xXxPARSIGOD420xXx (🧐) Poopy diaper (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5868038&forum_id=2в�€#49894781) |
|
Date: May 22nd, 2026 5:31 PM Author: oomox 180000. Yeah like how do people think we're paying for the war in Iran after cutting all those social services and saying there's no money for them? Lmao. And it's BEEN like this as long as I can remember. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5868038&forum_id=2�#49894782) |
|
Date: May 22nd, 2026 5:46 PM Author: ,.,..,.,..,.,.,.,..,.,.,,..,..,.,,..,.,,. i'm no econ masterman, but the keynes approach seems more intuitively correct in a lot of ways. his critics like the 'austrians'/milton friedman/etc. often seem to be describing something closer to a moral system than an economic one.
keynes correctly saw that economic modernity and technology were changing the way that human labor and output were interacting at a very basic level, and that 'money' was more like an incentive structure than a strict unit of accounting.
the fundamental limits are mostly based on resources, including human IQ, power generation, mining capacity, etc. rather than units of money as such. the 'factor endowment.' the reason you can't make everyone a big-living trillionaire is because of resource and production constraints rather than 'money.' cash is just notation.
keynes's most basic theory was that the financial crises of the past (from his perspective in the early-1900's) had been caused by lack of immediate liquidity rather than a lack of actual productive capacity. 'money' was a means of bridging the gap between production capacity and production/labor reality, which is constrained by instantaneous money supply due to the structure of how labor and other goods are acquired in terms of payment.
it seems blatantly obvious that he was right about that. he never claimed that there is no ceiling to liquidity, and he specifically advised for budget surpluses when possible and the creation of general funds for future usage as liquidity pools during financial emergencies.
literally none of that was wrong.
|
|
Date: May 22nd, 2026 5:47 PM Author: icanseemyneurons how many eggs do you eat per diem (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5868038&forum_id=2�#49894802) |
|
Date: May 22nd, 2026 6:05 PM Author: oomox Tyft, very well put. MMT evolved from Keynesianism and I believe it actually agrees with almost all of this. Cash is just notation and value is tied to real-world resources. (That is, the total value of all the money in circulation is tied to resources. The value of individual units is determined by how much cash is out there.) According to Gemini the only difference is the part about the surpluses and that's just because of modern realities. Back in his time the world was still tied very closely to the gold standard, so cash was more tightly coupled to physical constraints. So the idea of squirreling away cash for a future emergency was coherent and advisable. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5868038&forum_id=2�#49894859) |