Yes, any other description of how fiat currency works is hopelessly antiquarian and/or utterly fantastical. Furthermore, it's telling that supposed critiques of MMT are invariably either blatant mischaracterizations, or outright "it's a dangerous revelation that's TOO TRUE for public knowledge!". Here's a good 6-minute video summarizing it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDL4c8fMODk And PDF related is the most popular book on the subject. Regarding socialism, while the ramifications implied by MMT's description of reality are by necessity only related to capitalism with fiat currency, so it is strictly orthogonal to socialism per se, this also means it is a useful (and necessary!) adjunct to any socialist theory's characterization of capitalism if it was formulated before the switch to fiat happened from approximately the 1930s to the 1970s.

>>1327690 thx

>>1327690 >If capitalism could adapt production not to the obtaining of the utmost profit but to the systematic improvement of the material conditions of the masses of the people, and if it could turn profits not to the satisfaction of the whims of the parasitic classes, not to perfecting the methods of exploitation, not to the export of capital, but to the systematic improvement of the material conditions of the workers and peasants, then there would be no crises. But then capitalism would not be capitalism. To abolish crises it is necessary to abolish capitalism. w*Sternoids will always maximize suffering. Some aspects of the theory may be adopted...like printing money to send millions to hunger games or something, for our corporate overlords' entertainment. I'm sure there are very well payed people from different economic departments and thinks-tanks who lose their sleep drafting an economic policy that implements MMT in the most nightmarish way possible. Once they find out how, it will be more mainstream.

>>1327881 >an economic policy that implements MMT in the most nightmarish way possible That is pretty much the status quo Remember that while MMT's proponents tend to hold certain political positions, MMT itself is descriptive rather than proscriptive, and does not contain any policy proposals. Rather, MMT is the only accurate description how of things actually work today, with its ramifications elucidating that many of today's mainstream political policies are in fact nonsensical, and that many "fringe" political proposals are in fact practical, or even already in practice. >Once they find out how, it will be more mainstream. Denying reality, filling normalfags' heads with disinformation, is core to the modus operandi of Autistrian School economics. Indeed, the "mainstream" view of capitalism it propagates to the public is upheld on a cushion of false consciousness, with the inner doctrines the halls of high finance operate on day-to-day owing more to Marxism.

>>1327894 this is pretty accurate MMT just basically frames economic production as ultimately limited by labor supply, instead of being limited by private investment when people say we cant afford nice things they mean that capitalists wont pay for them, not that they are physically impossible.

Really its just Burger Monetary Theory. Literally no other nation, with possible exception of a few G20's) could ever try it without just ending up like Zimbabwe or Wiemar Germany. Also if it just prints money to give UBI or some shit, it will only end in rise of prices. There is no magic money tree, there is only labour, that of your people and that of the exploited third world.

Modern Monetary Theory is the acknowledgement that everything's made up and the points don't matter, and making it into official policy. This is in contrast to collectively deluding ourselves that money is real and has some kind of metaphysical intrinsic meaning. MMT is despookifying currency.

>>1327920 MMT is indeed most relevant to burgerstan, because we meet all of its prerequisites (sovereign issuer, debt denominated in domestic currency, high credit rating), but that doesn't prevent basically all other 1st-world and many 3rd-world economies from taking advantage of the powers MMT reveals them to have (especially the Eurozone, which if viewed as a single political unit, which it should be viewed as because that's what it actually is, would cause its citizenssubjects to demand the kinds of policy from the ECB that MMT advocates call for, instead of its current neolib flimflam). Even bottom-of-the-barrel 4th-world shitholes dangling from the IMF's meathooks, currencies pegged, and sanctions wrapped firmly around them, can use it to manage their internal finances more sanely, and ward off neolib snakeoil. A good case in point here would be Venezuela's astonishingly incompetent abuse of exchange controls, versus China's mostly perspicacious employment of them. >There is no magic money tree, there is only labour You're conflating value with actual goods and services. The purpose of fiscal policy for inflation/deflation, much like that of taxation/spending, and indeed all of money itself, is the allotment of production, not production itself. The intended effect of UBI isn't to produce mana from heaven, it's to force rich people to give mana to poor people. Basic map/territory issue common to every shittake on LTV which is itself common to every shittake on Marx

>>1327674 Neo-chartalism, is wrong for exactly the same causes its previous version is guilty off, a bad interpretation of the origin of money(money wasnt created byt the state it is born historically out of social relations of cultural importance, which make an objectr have more psychological importance than others, take for example salt, or certain types of flowers in old societies all these used as a medium of exchange). Second, it sees money much as a simbol of debt issueing towards the state, however, if you take this argument towards its final conclusion, you realize that every exchange is indeed a debt which helps in absolutely nothing when constructing or describing fiscal policy. Form, this, it is concluded, that the state can just use as much money as it is desired, in order for different sectors to pay their debts.Meaning, that, the what the state should do is liberate money printing capacity, and let it be whatever we want it to be, in other words, we can pump as much money into the economy as we deem possible. This argument has some heavy contradictions.Take a really simple example, if you buy some fresh bananas at 5$ taken taht your budget constraint is equal to what you spent, now, it is a given, that banana output production is limited by natural conditions, you can only get as much bananas as the soil lets you, also taking into accounts draughts etc, all this meaning that supply can´t be modified.You could say there is an "equilibrium", but if suddelny someone would add purchasing power say nother 5$, then he would have double his budget, assuming that he want to put all of that into the market, then, assuming the same supply, what would happen?, it is evident, that he could still buy all of the bananas, but he would end up with more money than goods exists, meaning, excdeeding value of titles which can claim goods, than the value of goods themselves, more demand than supply, making that money as such useless, now imagine an economy whre this would happen, with many buyers and sellers, this would ultimately leave at a clear view the fact that actual value is no there, hence if the capitalist is driven by production and wants to spend, and also taking away this excess money would be very complicated, then you have to corrrect pp, then how do tou do it?, easy, inflation.Making MMT just a "theory of inflaition financing". There is also the problem that given the laws of capitalist production, the bourgeois, have a maximizing profit rate attitude, making investment completely tied to it, having as an ulterior conclusion, the fact that you can´t pump as much money into the economy as you want, since money will be invested into capital as much as it turns a significant profit rate for the capitalist.

>>1327952 >money wasnt created byt the state State-created fiat currency is several thousand years old, see China. It's an idiotic argument either way, on par with saying that it's impossible for birds to have wings since insects were the fist to have them. >it sees money much as a simbol of debt issueing towards the state, however, if you take this argument towards its final conclusion, you realize that every exchange is indeed a debt X-for-Y barter between two parties doesn't create debt. Two private actors exchanging a good against state currency also doesn't create debt, the currency is an already-existing token that nullifies debt against the state. >if you buy some fresh bananas at 5$ taken taht your budget constraint is equal to what you spent, now, it is a given, that banana output production is limited by natural conditions, you can only get as much bananas as the soil lets you, also taking into accounts draughts etc, all this meaning that supply can´t be modified. Nice job naturalizing the economy like a right-wing shill. We don't have full employment and machinery doesn't run at full capacity. Currency isn't neutral, meaning it can be issued above the spending minus taxes to push towards higher employment without the effect being nullified by inflation. >the bourgeois Lol are you trying to sound like a troo lefty here.

>>1327985 >State-created fiat currency is several thousand years old, see China. It's an idiotic argument either way, on par with saying that it's impossible for birds to have wings since insects were the fist to have them. I believe you have misunderstood me, what I was pointing out, was that Money didn´t originate by any state, besides, non of those are older than the money forms I´ve advanced. >X-for-Y barter between two parties doesn't create debt. Two private actors exchanging a good against state currency also doesn't create debt, the currency is an already-existing token that nullifies debt against the state. I does create a temporal debt, thats filled instantly, but in trade it exists its there, you lose and you gain in equal value, debt is exactly the same, the difference, is the the time that transcurs between claiming hte vlaue and giving it back, aside from that its just exchange.And as i´ve said, it is not true that it nullifies debt, since the goods and services that are supposed to give in exchange do not exist, hence, money loses all exchange value, it is true however, taht formaly the entities lose the responsability towrds payments, but this only means that other firm has to pay it instead with real value. Nice job naturalizing the economy like a right-wing shill. We don't have full employment and machinery doesn't run at full capacity. Currency isn't neutral, meaning it can be issued above the spending minus taxes to push towards higher employment without the effect being nullified by inflation. Indeed, I never assumed such a fact I just said that there exists an eventual limit which will give inflation, see the second point, this is only the first limitation, you can only pump as many money into the system as the capitalsit is willing to invest, hence, there will be a point when growht will become inverted and unemployment will begin to rise, I never said that you can´t print more than the value you have, that why I said inflation financing.So in order to nullify inflation youd have to get as much money out of circulation as the excdenet with reagrds to value, but this would kill the purpouse of the MMT.

>>1327952 >social relations of cultural importance In other words, debt accounting. >wasnt created byt the state Money was created by states, but chartalism specifically describes earlier proto-money systems of debt accounting evolving in non-state societies, much as we still see them in such societies today. >medium of exchange [anthropological attestation not found] >taking away this excess money would be very complicated It's very easy, you tax it out of existence, causing deflation. That's one of the most elementary declarations of MMT. tl;dr: Chartalism is founded on more recent scientific evidence than whatever you're presumably espousing, and MMT is a necessary adjunct to any theory of capitalism from before the full switch to fiat was made.

Missed this >you can only pump as many money into the system as the capitalsit is willing to invest Direct public expenditure can bypass capitalism, which makes sense, since the latter evolved after the former.

>>1327920 Here's a typical article outlining some of the ramifications of MMT for weaker economies: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=5402 tl;dr: >generic keynesian stimulus anti-austerity pro-regulatory exhortations >relinquishing monetary sovereignty to pegging is almost (possibly entirely) never a good idea, you gotta FLOOT!!! >if conditions imposed by creditors such as the imf restrict you from doing awesome keynesian shiet, at least threaten to go bankrupt! don't believe the investors' hollow blacklisting threats, the resulting growth from sane policy will have them offering more money again sooner than later.

>>1327674 >Do you think it is correct? Micheal Roberts wrote https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2019/01/28/modern-monetary-theory-part-1-chartalism-and-marx/ https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2019/02/03/mmt-2-the-tricks-of-circulation/ https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2019/02/05/mmt-3-a-backstop-to-capitalism/ He's correct, only the USA government could do it, and it would suck for dollarized economies.

>>1328011 >In other words, debt accounting. Even then it would be exchange as I explained, however in reality, money doesn´t rise out of debt but the elevation of some object as culturally important and hence then given in exchange, not for debt accounting as charltanism deems it to be >Money was created by states, but chartalism specifically describes earlier proto-money systems of debt accounting evolving in non-state societies, much as we still see them in such societies today. Again, this is not real, see earlier forms of money like salt that were established by societies with out states. >[anthropological attestation not found] Refer to what I mentioned above >It's very easy, you tax it out of existence, causing deflation. That's one of the most elementary declarations of MMT. tl;dr: Chartalism is founded on more recent scientific evidence than whatever you're presumably espousing, and MMT is a necessary adjunct to any theory of capitalism from before the full switch to fiat was made. Exactly, the problem is that this completely kills the purpouse of MMT, deregulated spending, and also assumes the HEAVY fact, that firms cannot avoid taxes and keep the money, which is really unrealistic under capitalism.

>>1328159 >assumes the HEAVY fact, that firms cannot avoid taxes It's not relevant whether some particular business can avoid taxes. As long as there are some who have to pay taxes and who can provide some goods or services, the transferable tax-canceling tokens are worth something. They are desirable even from the point of view of somebody who doesn't have to pay taxes, because he can exchange them. The other guy is right.

>>1328499 That will cause capital transfer from capitalists that pay taxes to capitalists that dodge taxes. Lessening your ability to remove money from circulation because tax paying capitalists will fade away.

>>1328505 This is just retarded doomerposting. Opportunities for dodging taxes are limited. How would you dodge the land-value tax.

>>1328506 >Opportunities for dodging taxes are limited. You can't be real, what about all those mega corporations and wallstreet that pay zero or negative taxes. >How would you dodge the land-value tax. You want to put all the tax burden on capitalists that use a lot of land like solar farms and not tax oil companies that use hardly any land because deep sea drilling platforms aren't land.

>modern monetary theory HA!

>>1328532 Basically this, also the fact that even thought Georgists afirm that the LVT is non-transferable, they provide no proof of why this should be the case, hence, taxes could be perfectly covered by raising the price level within a market.

>>1328532 >You want to put all the tax burden on capitalists that use a lot of land like solar farms and not tax oil companies that use hardly any land Look up what the land-value tax actually is. It's not a fixed number times the amount of square meters. Land rich in natural resources is taxed at a higher rate. This is not an ad-hoc addition to the proposal, it's fundamentally part of what the land-value tax means today and what it meant when it was proposed over a century ago. >>1328608 >Georgists afirm that the LVT is non-transferable, they provide no proof of why this should be the case Of course they give a reason, and again I have to say they gave the reason already more than a century ago. Marxists accept it. The argument is so simple that even a neoclassical economist can understand it. You can read the beginning of Hal Varian's intro to economics for that. Saying that the landlords could easily just raise their pre-tax income by raising rents in case of higher taxation is to say that they could also easily raise their pre-tax income by raising rents right now. The supply is rigid.

>>1328673 >Look up what the land-value tax actually is. Muh definitions. We are debating the tax collector's ability to leverage taxes. >It's not a fixed number times the amount of square meters. Capitalists who rent a few square meters of office space can pack up and move to dodge taxes, a huge solar farm can't. >Land rich in natural resources is taxed at a higher rate. Solar radiation isn't a natural resource ? How do you collect LVT on an oil platform in international waters?

>>1328686 >Muh definitions. We are debating… >Solar radiation isn't a natural resource ? The location that is sensible for a solar farm is of course a natural resource, but it's not as valuable as an oil field or a gold mine. Why do I even have to type this, are you acting retarded on purpose? You have shown yourself to be very opinionated about something you aren't familiar with at all. You would know what the land-value tax is if you had read Henry George or the remarks about him and his land-value tax by Hal Varian or Mason Gaffney or Piero Sraffa. We aren't debating shit. The post was for the benefit of lurkers. "Ohoo, the capitalists are so clever, aren't they. They never have to pay any taxes, boohoo, and they can move to the Moon. And they will just fold up the land and put it in their pockets and take their oil fields and coal mines with them." Yeah, let's just give up and cry and never read anything. Never think about economics. Never improve. Thanks for your amazing insight, comrade Downie McGlowcunt.

>>1328714 >McGlowcunt. No u Marx wrote about Gerogism: <Theoretically the man Henry George is utterly backward! He understands nothing about the nature of surplus value and so wanders about in speculations which follow the English model but have now been superseded even among the English, about the different portions of surplus value to which independent existence is attributed--about the relations of profit, rent, interest, etc. His fundamental dogma is that everything would be all right if ground rent were paid to the state. (You will find payment of this kind among the transitional measures included in The Communist Manifesto too.) This idea originally belonged to the bourgeois economists; it was first put forward (apart from a similar demand at the end of the eighteenth century) by the earliest radical followers of Ricardo, soon after his death. I said of it in 1847, in my work against Proudhon: “We can understand that economists like Mill” (the elder, not his son John Stuart, who also repeats this in a somewhat modified form) “Cherbuliez, Hilditch and others have demanded that rent should be paid to the state in order that it may serve as a substitute for taxes. This is a frank expression of the hatred which the industrial capitalist dedicates to the landed proprietor, who seems to him a useless and superfluous element in the general total of bourgeois production.” <We ourselves, as I have already mentioned, adopted this appropriation of ground rent by the state among numerous other transitional measures, which, as we also remarked in the Manifesto, are and must be contradictory in themselves. <All these “socialists” since Colins have this much in common that they leave wage labour and therefore capitalist production in existence and try to bamboozle themselves or the world into believing that if ground rent were transformed into a state tax all the evils of capitalist production would disappear of themselves. The whole thing is therefore simply an attempt, decked out with socialism, to save capitalist domination and indeed to establish it afresh on an even wider basis than its present one. Full text: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/letters/81_06_20.htm tldr: Marx supported LVT as a transitional demand for socialism, not as a solution to capitalism.

>>1328821 I already know what Marx and Engels wrote about Henry George, I have the MEW on my computer. >Marx supported LVT as a transitional demand for socialism, not as a solution to capitalism. As do I. This excerpt does nothing to support the retarded claim in this thread that landlords would shift the tax burden.

>>1328821 <they leave wage labour and therefore capitalist production in existence and try to bamboozle themselves or the world OH LAWDY, the MLs have egregious crimes to answer for! >>1328849 >As do I And George himself: <Let the socialists come with us, and they will go faster and further in this direction than they can go alone; and when we stop they can, if they choose, try to keep on. But if they must persist in bringing to the front their schemes for making the state everything and the individual nothing, let them maintain their socialistic labor party and leave us to fight our own way.

>>1328849 LVT doesn't solve capitalist tax evasion. The MMT scheme doesn't work if you can't remove money from circulation. >>1328890 Neo-liberalism happened, because the workers didn't capture the state. Capitalists have turned people into human resources, they made the individual worker nothing. Mls abolished capitalist production, they allocated surplus for society as a hole not individual capitalists.

>>1328965 We only have this "discussion" (you people repeating FUD) about muh capitalist tax evasion because you aren't familiar with economics. The land-value tax is simple and it works.

>>1328967 How do you tax Wallstreet or oil corporations, with a land value tax ?

>>1328965 >Neo-liberalism happened, because the workers didn't capture the state. Neoliberalism happened in no small part because the CCP's state capitalism betrayed the workers of the world and China alike by embracing it with both arms. >Mls abolished capitalist production LOL not according to that Marx quote they didn't!

>>1328967 It's amazing that the very worst MLs gormlessly parrot undiluted porkie thonktonk propaganda like "raising taxes doesn't ackshually result in those exact rates being paid by the rich but it does result in taxes paid by the rich going up almost linearly!" or "muh capital flight that is vastly exaggerated from historical reality!". Makes me wonder if they're just contrarian brainlets who unthinkingly grasp anything that will pwn teh libs epic stile, or if they really are infiltrated by glownog.

>>1329048 China can't make western capitalists move their production to Asia. You can't blame them. Western capitalists are responsible for deindustrializing western countries, nobody made them. Capital controls could have stopped neoliberals, but workers weren't in charge of governments. >CCP using glowy spelling for CPC >>1329051 Big sectarian strawman. Capitalists can be taxed if the legal tax loopholes are closed and tax collector agencies have enough funding to chase all the tax dodgers. It would help if you nationalize all the banks and financial providers. A land value tax is not enough to tax capitalists, it's a false promise to fool the socialists. >glownog. No u

>>1329094 >China can't make western capitalists move their production to Asia I guess there are a variety of ways to characterize offering an unprecedented sweetheart deal backed by a billion warm bodies under a totalitarian capitalist regime intent on selling at firesale prices. That just so happened to coincide with the greatest wave of offshoring since the Gilded Age. >abloo abloo muh microagression Cry me 3 gorges >sectarian Oh the ironing <Capitalists can be taxed if the legal tax loopholes are closed and tax collector agencies have enough funding to chase all the tax dodgers Thanks for admitting everything you've said about the LVT ITT is meaningless twaddle

>>1329098 >I guess there are a variety of ways to characterize offering an unprecedented sweetheart deal backed by a billion warm bodies under a totalitarian capitalist regime intent on selling at firesale prices. That just so happened to coincide with the greatest wave of offshoring since the Gilded Age. Be honest deep down you know the capitalists betrayed you, they shipped all your MOP to Asia. China didn't take it. Learn from your mistakes, capitalists are only loyal to profits. Capture the government and make them do the workers bidding until you are in a position to phase out capitalism. >totalitarian regime You sound like American corporate news. >>1329098 >Thanks for admitting everything you've said about the LVT ITT is meaningless twaddle Lol I didn't. If you have the power to tax away all the money wallstreet could flood into the market, you have enough power to make it socialism. And it would be nice if you stopped with the strawman. LVT is not the same as nationalizing all banking, finance services and giving the tax collector real authority over the bourgeoisie.

>>1329103 >you know the capitalists betrayed you Yes, I know the Chinese Capitalist Party worked with the other capitalists here to betray us on a scale that hadn't happened for the better part of a century. It took two to tango. >you have enough power to make it socialism Sure, if I also had a clear blueprint of what "socialism" would be, instead of a hodgepodge of mostly mutually compatible experimental ideas that will hopefully allow us to discover that if implemented. >You sound like American corporate news You even moreso, "socialism is when gubmint does stuff, the more stuff it does, the socialister it is". Case in point: >nationalizing Also a good idea for natural monopolies or whatever, but it isn't any more unique to socialism either. >Lol I didn't Yes you did. You repeatedly issued the laughable claim that LVT wouldn't work because of stuff that already doesn't hinder actual taxes, now you've shifted to "what Georgists seek to accomplish isn't ambitious enough".

>>1329104 Blaming China is bootlicking. >if I also had a clear blueprint of what "socialism" would be Towards A New Socialism by Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell. Adapt it to your local conditions. (pdf is in the cyber socialism thread) >socialism is when gubmint does stuff Use government powers in the interests of the working class. >you've shifted I can talk about more than one problem. The land value tax doesn't touch all capitalists, it's not enough to make MMT work. MMT lets capitalism keep the MOP, it's the same mistake that killed social democracy.

>>1329110 >Blaming China is bootlicking Refusing to blame their leadership is bootlicking >penisexplosion A lot of interesting ideas, though I personally lean toward the ambition of using modern crypto ideas to decentralize it, in a sort of combination with liquid democracy. >MMT >LVT Are two completely unrelated ideas >make MMT work MMT already "works", because it's merely the description of how capitalism has actually functioned for the past century. You can choose to embrace it and tackle capitalism as it truly exists today, allowing you to bend and break the system using these insights. Or you can deny reality, clinging to outdated or wholly fantastical conceptions of it, flailing helplessly against a foe you refuse to gaze directly at.

>>1329114 >Refusing to blame their leadership They didn't make the rules for the neoliberal world. >crypto in combination with liquid democracy Can it do cyber socialism with labor values ? >how capitalism has actually functioned MMT lacks a theory of surplus value. It's a story to justify full employment in the United States. It's not a theory, MMT policy recommendations would fail in any other country.

>>1329051 It is actually right-wing propaganda that raising taxes on the rich can't possibly work under any circumstances. You might think of yourself as being on the left and being a radical at that, since you use that talking-point to argue for radical change, but effectively you are arguing for the rich, at least in the eyes of those who are reluctant to fully commit to the communist position. >>1329110 >MMT lets capitalism keep the MOP No, MMT is just descriptive. It doesn't contain a recommendation for or against nationalizing all the MOP or partial nationalizing or whatever.

>>1329136 >They didn't make the rules for the neoliberal world They did. Not alone, but they were major players. >Can it do cyber socialism with labor values ? Honestly much of the theory behind both is over my head, and of course almost none of it has been put to the test IRL, but I think it seems at least plausible, which makes it something well worth investigating. >MMT lacks a theory of surplus value It's outside MMT's intended context, which is very specifically that of state finance and its vertical transactions with the private sector. Even for libs, MMT is typically combined with a horizontal circuit theory or something to form a more complete economic theory, and it can thus likewise be combined with pre-fiat socialist conceptions of capitalism such as Marxism, to update those theories for the fiat era. >It's a story to justify full employment in the United States It "justifies" anything that state funds can reallocate resources for, or that "mainstream" economists supposedly think would cause inflation or "excessive debt". >MMT policy recommendations would fail in any other country Nope, even the most ambitious policies justified by acknowledging MMT's ramifications (MMT itself contains no policy agenda per se) apply fully to any monetarily sovereign economy, which is most of them. Even for economies that are not monetarily sovereign, MMT still offers insights that cut through a lot of bad advice commonly given to e.g., 3rd-world economies. As I noted upthread: >>1327924 >>1328068

>>1329185 China wasn't part of imposing the neoliberal world. They have overcome most of the dictates of transnational corps and finance to develop their society against the wishes of capital. They might soon act as a counterweight to the reign of austerity. >Honestly much of the theory behind both is over my head You don't understand what you advocate ? >It's outside MMT's intended context Surplus value is at the core of everything economic. Theories that lack it are incomplete. >MMT apply fully to any monetarily sovereign economy Every country of the world has to use Dollars to some degree, that makes the United states the only economy that is fully monetarily sovereign.

>>1327674 >thread about modern monetary theory. Do you think it is correct? MMT is "correct" in that (from the bourgeois point of view) it is the monetary expression of Marx's absolute overaccumulation of capital following the breakdown of production based on exchange value.

>>1329238 >China wasn't part of imposing the neoliberal world They were #2 after the US, basically the two most important in the creation of that event. >You don't understand what you advocate ? The amount and interactions of the technology involved are extreme, not to mention that much of it is cutting edge. Even without that, the economic theory is very arcane, if anyone here said they understand all of it, I'd be a bit skeptical. And, of course, as I emphasized before, it is either almost totally untested or has only been used IRL in radically different applications to date. >Theories that lack it are incomplete As has been said ITT repeatedly, MMT does not claim to be a complete economic theory, merely a description of fiat currency and its ramifications. Thus, it can be used as an adjunct to any valid theory of pre-fiat economics, which includes every major strain of socialism. >that makes the United states the only economy that is fully monetarily sovereign Hardly necessary to do most of the things MMT reveals you can do as a sovereign, or even the things it emphasizes are even more important than typically thought if you're not floating or otherwise (e.g., IMF conditions) encumbered, as I've repeatedly noted. Anyways, reserve currency status ain't all it's cracked up to be. For one thing, it imposes the need for liberalized deregulation on the USA, creating a "Triffin Dilemma" between running a prosperous economy and being an effective global hegemon. Read up on the ICU/Bancor proposal at Bretton Woods, and how some (sadly not the most influential) wiser heads in China are considering its resurrection as an alternative to the currency exchange and market liberalizatation currently being pursued by the Chinese leadership, in a foolish effort to repeat USA's mistakes.

>>1329320 China wasn't involved in the creation of the neoliberal order, it happened before Deng's reform and opening up. Cybersocialism has moderate technical demands by the standards of today. It has a simple theory that if labor is measured in time the workers won't be cheated. Many countries have dollars in circulation, if they print currency and raise taxes, it will push dollarisation. If you can control the state and print money for MMT, you can also introduce labor vouchers, it's the same difficulty.

>>1329358 >China wasn't involved in the creation of the neoliberal order <1972 <nixon goes to china <same year, neoliberalism imposed <sweatshops, offshoring, unions busted, labor productivity/compensation growth suddenly and irreparably uncouple <1978 <deng xiaoping promoted to supreme power in china, doubles down on neolib throughout '80s <1979 <margaret thatcher <1980 <ronald reagan Face it, China was knee deep in the ascendancy of neoliberalism from day 1. >Cybersocialism has moderate technical demands by the standards of today I'm not referring the computational demands of its core planning algorithm, but to its intricacy and the novel concepts it explores. Also, not just to Cockshott/Cottrell's work, but to additional ideas that would allow it to operate in a decentralized way and give various additional benefits of even greater democracy, freedom, and security. >if labor is measured in time The exact least interesting rhetorical device he uses >if they print currency and raise taxes, it will push dollarisation Not unavoidably, and especially not if sane exchange controls are employed. >labor vouchers Please tell me you know what the defining feature of labor vouchers actually is, their cancellation on use, not some meme of time accounting or whatever.

>>1329463 >blaming China The beginning of neoliberalism is in 1947 when Hayak founds the Mt.Pelerin society. It takes 30 years until they have the power to put neoliberalism into practice. China had no part in this installation process. Deng was not a neoliberal sell out like Yeltsin. The decision to move production to China was made by capitalists, not the communist party of China. China did not make Nixon and Reagan president of America or Thatcher UK prime minister. >cybernetic socialism has too many intricacies if it has to operate decentralized. Make it centralized if that is easier. >sane exchange controls and dollarisation Venezuela couldn't do it, many countries have less effective governance than that. >the defining feature of labor vouchers is their cancellation on use Like invalidating theater tickets on show night. It's simple and effective.

>>1329512 >The CCP had nothing to do with the outsourcing of every major industrial business to their country. Imagine believing this.

>>1327674 it's correct in it's rejection of monetarism, Friedmanism etc which a lot of "left wing" people buy into

>>1329512 >The beginning of neoliberalism is in 1947 when Hayak founds the Mt.Pelerin society. Ackshually a decade earlier when the Colloque Walter Lippmann was held, in direct reaction against the rising star of Keynesianism under FDR & various yuro succdems, after the Great Depression utterly shrek'd the credibility of laissez-faire "economics". But yeah, your basic conception is sound. It takes 30 years until they have the power to put neoliberalism into practice. Nope, that didn't happen in the '80s, it had already happened in the '70s, '72 at the latest, worldwide. China had no part in this installation process. Amazing coincidence that China just happened to be the most popular destination for offshoring when it happened, with China involved at the ground floor of negotiations years before its competitors. >Deng was not a neoliberal sell out like Yeltsin. Deng was even worse, because he refused to even discard the mantle of cummienizm. >сорeсорeсорeсорeсорeсорeсорeсорeсорe Little-known fact: Years before The Iron Lady became PM, she visited China to commiserate with top CCP bureaucrats over their shared fondness for stamping out labor unions. As PM, she went on to forge the SARs of HK & Macau explicitly based off the principles of Dengism. >Make it centralized Don't wanna >Venezuela couldn't do it They could've. In fact, it would've been easier than what they did, a bass-ackward regime even on paper incorporating the drawbacks of both closed exchange and full float, with the advantages of neither. Venezuela's problem was that the leadership had no expertise in designing a practical exchange control regime. >It's simple and effective Yup. An excellent means with which to close the capital circuit.

>>1327674 It's correct up to a point.

>>1329558 >Ackshually a decade earlier when the Colloque Walter Lippmann was held In 1938 Mao was battling it out with Japan, and the yellow river was flooded. They were too busy for neoliberal scheming. >China just happened to be the most popular destination for offshoring The core countries were more powerful than China. Their internal politics are not the responsibility of China. The bourgeoisie makes the decisions about capital in capitalism. Why are you trying to protect the transnational bourgeoisie from blame ? They will beat you even harder as thankyou. Western governments could have used capital controls to stop offshoring. >Deng was worse than Yeltsin. Yeltsin caused a nightmarish collapse when he dissolved the Soviet Union against the democratic will of Soviet citizens. China was more prosperous after Deng, not a wasteland of failed states. Russia lost productive forces and China gained productive forces. Deng didn't ruin China, the party stayed strong enough to turn away from neoliberalism. >Years before The Iron Lady became PM, she visited China. Chinese bureaucrats did not turn her into an evil witch. You have crazy theories. >Don't wanna You don't want cybernetic socialism and centralization is your excuse ? >Venezuela's problem was that the leadership had no expertise in designing a practical exchange control regime. You have the wrong expectations. Leftists don't like money, most of the time they will not be skillful money magicians. Leftists would be more talented at creating accounting for material stuff and labor vouchers.

>>1329617 >In 1938 Mao wuz blah blah blah... My point (like yours I replied to, I assume?) was that neoliberalism was basically irrelevant outside a handful of Autistrian School academics buttmad over succdems. Until the '70s, when they finally made a successful global play for power. >Their internal politics are not the responsibility of China Yet China played a core part in neolibs seizing power worldwide. In fact, its stance as a traitor against the global proletariat, increasingly aligned with NATO against the Warsaw Pact even before neoliberalism came to the fore, made it a crucial candidate for the neolibs' ambitions at the time. >Russia lost productive forces and China gained productive forces. The USSR was already a mature economy with limited room for further growth, one with much lower population density, and most of its wealth the result of tribute from its broader empire that dissolved. China on the other hand was almost completely undeveloped well into the early '80s, with a massive population concentrated in the Southeast near the coast. Any competent effort (i.e.: Not Mao) at industrialization was inevitably going to do wonders for China, crediting capitalism with that is almost as braindead as crediting socialism. >Chinese bureaucrats did not turn her into an evil witch I'mma just be sayajin, there's some mighty sus coincidences there. >You don't want cybernetic socialism and centralization is your excuse ? I do want it, precisely because it holds serious potential for combining the decentralization of markets with the stability of planning, and the disadvantages of neither. >Leftists don't like money, most of the time they will not be skillful money magicians. I've generally gotten the opposite impression, with many of the most talented porkies being students of Marx, and much Marxist analysis being lowkey acknowledged inside porky circles. They don't get high off their own supply, yaknowwhatimean? Venezuela just dun goofed up, no two ways about it.

>>1329635 My point was that China was not part of neoliberalism's origin story. >Yet China played a core part in neolibs seizing power worldwide. In 1970 China could not influence internal politics in core capitalist countries. You hide the culprit of the neoliberal disaster: the transnational bourgeoisie. >The USSR collected tributes from its broader empire enough with anti communist propaganda >I have a coincidence theory about Thatcher You are a clown. >I do want it, precisely because it holds serious potential for combining the decentralization of markets with the stability of planning, and the disadvantages of neither. You said decentralization was too hard. If you wanted cybernetic socialism you would accept a compromise. Markets centralize wealth and power into monopolies. >I've generally gotten the opposite impression >Venezuela just dun goofed up, no two ways about it. You just ignore Venezuela because it's inconvenient. >Marxist analysis being lowkey acknowledged inside porky circles. Capitalists never acknowledge the labor theory of value, or crisis theory.

>>1329643 >China was not part of neoliberalism's origin story Which is totally irrelevant to its rise to power, since neolibs also had basically no real power in the US, Europe, etc. for decades. >In 1970 China could not influence internal politics in core capitalist countries They could and did, because those countries made overtures to build an alliance against the USSR, which the CCP eagerly reciprocated on over their autistic little feud. >You are a clown I was being sarcastic probably, you colossal autist. I'm not seriously suggesting Thatcher/Reagan/etc. were Manchurian Candidates, programmed with neolib indoctrination deep in a Laogai during "routine" negotiation visits. My actual argument was that neolibs on "both" sides were working together on joint projects for years beforehand. >You said decentralization was too hard No, I said it adds complications, just like safeguards against corruption add complexity (probably insoluble IMHO) to centralization. That doesn't mean we should shrink from the challenge, if there's a way to make something so desirable work. >You just ignore Venezuela because it's inconvenient No, I understand their failure precisely because what happened is common to even the most compliant neolib lapdogs, and pointing out exactly where vuvuzela's problems came from is vital to debunk blame placed on the otherwise laudable policy aims of Chavismo. >Capitalists never acknowledge the labor theory of value, or crisis theory. Not out loud, duh. Same as they don't acknowledge MMT is basically how they ackshually do state macroecon.

>>1329648 >still blaming china Neoliberlaism didn't come from China. It was brought to China by the visiting ambassadors of capitalism. The Chinese communists used that opportunity to gain access to more advanced means of production. The Chinese proletariat had to pay for that with exploitation. If the productive forces were worth the sacrifice or the break up with the USSR is a debate for another time. China isn't responsible for the internal affairs of western countries. The lesson is that governments need to control the bourgeoisie to counter sabotage by deindustrialization. >My actual argument was that neolibs on "both" sides were working together on joint projects for years beforehand. The Chinese neolibs have been purged from the Communist party of China. Xi Jinping has goals that are compatible with the left faction of western social democracy. If your theory of transnational neoliberal collusion is true, why not return the favor instead of playing neocoldwar. >Chavismo had the wrong money wizards. Why did Marx say workers should seize the means of production instead of seizing the central bank ? >Capitalists are secret Marxists If they know about the tendency for the rate of profit to fall, why don't they give up, the diminishing returns of capitalism aren't worth it.

>>1329798 >It was brought to China by the visiting ambassadors of capitalism Some of them Chinese, just like other neolibs who had been peddling their wares to every gullible backwater in the world from Spain, to Singapore, to Chile, and beyond, in a desperate bid for relevance and credibility. >China isn't responsible for the internal affairs of western countries With the level of involvement they had, both to international policy, and to domestic interests? They absolutely did. Sorry, but China, even by the 1950s (let alone the 1970s!), was a global playa deeply enmeshed in schemes of capitalists in China itself, vying against other ML regimes, throughout the 3rd-world "periphery", and deep inside the "core". >The Chinese neolibs have been purged from the Communist party of China. Xi Jinping has goals that are compatible with the left faction of western social democracy. 'HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! *cough* *cough* *inhale* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! >If your theory of transnational neoliberal collusion is true, why not return the favor instead of playing neocoldwar Because the CCP are neolib subhumans that deserve to face the wall, just like our own ruling class. For the same reasons, I want them marginalized from power at least, torn limb from limb in a revolution at best. >Why did Marx say workers should seize the means of production instead of seizing the central bank ? He said both. Depending on local conditions, Marx was variously in favor of violent insurrection, direct activism, and electoral parliamentary reformism, serving the aims of upheaval or incrementalism as he deemed prudent. In fact, this stance earned him infamous scorn from anarchists, who dismissed Marx as a weenie using language remarkably similar to that of today's MLARPers. >why don't they give up, the diminishing returns of capitalism aren't worth it. Eh, who knows? You could ask the same thing about their foreknowledge from internal memoranda by corporate scientists on AGW at least as far back as the 1930s. Maybe they just want to squeeze every last drop of blood before the system implodes? Maybe they know something we don't?

>>1329822 >China controls the world What are you smoking ? China can't decide internal politics of core capitalist countries like north America, central Europe, Japan or Australia, in the present let alone in the 1950s or 70s. Name one legislation they have changed in these countries. (They may have some sway in the euro south, Australia's coal region and Canada's real estate sector, because those regions are drifting into capitalist periphery) >Sino Soviet split It was a fuck up on both sides. China's real politic was shit and Mao should have been removed from diplomatic missions after he called Khrushchev a nazi. But the Soviets kept pressuring China to adopt the soviet model. China has fewer natural resources than Russia, they have to trade until technology can overcome geographic shortcomings. >HA no answer ? >the CCP are neolib The CPC are doing a developmental regime in China and Asia with the bourgeoisie at gunpoint. They have more welfare services with every year that goes by. They hired unemployed workers during capitalist crisis to build railroads like the US build a highway system under keynsianism. Is that not why you shill for MMT ? >He said both. Marx didn't give many prescriptions for socialism, but he did recommend payment in labor certificates. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

>>1329906 <China controls the world Nobody "controls the world", but among the countries that influence it the most, it's undeniable China is and long has been one of them. >China can't decide internal politics of core capitalist countries Give it up. the CCP is and has long been a global player, hip deep in formulating and advancing neolib ideology. >Name one legislation they have changed in these countries WTO? GATT? ISDS? TPP? Literally all the neolib garbage rubberstamped by every core NATO legislature for the past 5 decades has been pushed collectively by every country ruled by neolib ideologues, China included. Not to mention all the policies founded on (secret in many but far from all) cases joint military/intelligence actions with China. >It was a fuck up on both sides Kewl equivocation. China was in the wrong versus the USSR. Period. And I say that as someone who thinks the entire ML project was probably an abortion from day 1. >no answer The tears of laughter streaming down my face are the only fitting answer I can bring to someone saying Dengists have "purged the neolibs" or "have goals compatible with western social democracy". The entire CCP regime is now irreparably neolib to its bones, made its initial IPO to the fortunes of their princelings by selling the hard-won policy victories of the global labor movement for the prior century at firesale prices, has been liberalizing and deregulating China nonstop, produced inequality on a scale unseen in history, and any actual gains to material conditions for the typical Chinaman have come exclusively from bitch-basic competent industrialization, against the background of an inferior and worse-performing ripoff of policy previously championed by the neolib-fascist "Asian Tiger" economies (Sp, SK, HK, Tw). That anyone would call themselves a leftist, and unironically shill for the travesty of a travesty that is communism with Dengist characteristics using boilerplate IMF talking points, then go on to exonerate it of complicity for its every crime against the workers of the world at home and abroad, is a farce beyond parody. >They hired unemployed workers Chinese employment stats are severely distorted by their "hukou" internal passport system that pushes veggies around on the plate by pretending people live and work in completely different locations. Ironically, Capitalist China could probably use explicit MMT and an actual universal employment program. Especially since the state sector has been shrinking every year for decades. >labor certificates That's not really relevant to high state finance, especially internationally.

>>1329929 I'm going back to a previous point, we haven't hashed out, because your mind is still blighted by capitalist ideology. I don't believe China can be the cause of capital flight from the core countries. Capitalists decided that and it makes them responsible. Western governments share some responsibility, because they didn't control capital flows. China offered cheap labor but that doesn't count for responsibility. Cheap labor is never a voluntary offer. Capitalists force workers to offer them their labor power for low wages. They do it on an individual level and on an international level. China did not create the international superstructure of capitalism. They did not originate neoliberalism and they do not perpetuate it, they only participate in it. Neoliberalism is the process of making states responsible to enact nothing but the dictates of transnational corporations and international high finance. The defining feature of neoliberalism is stagnant declining wages and unsustainable shorttermism. China has at most a state capitalist model that outsmarted the neoliberal system. It puts ideological pressure on neoliberal dogma. China is far away from a socialist model, but they admit as much. In a parallel reality the Sino Soviet split never happened because both sides committed to create a socialist world government that can effectively rule over the SU, PRC and other socialist aligned countries. They effectively merged the PLA and the red army into one force. Capitalism is on the backfoot and world socialism only a matter of time. In our reality neither side committed. It doesn't matter that the Soviets had a higher level of insufficient commitment. You deflected my request for Chinese interference in domestic policy of capitalist countries with trade agreements which are foreign policy. >princelings i don't know what that means >the hard-won policy victories of the global labor movement what global labour movement ? The only thing that existed were national labor movements. >China could use an actual universal employment program. We can agree on that point >The state sector has been shrinking every year Until 2019, when it started to grow again under the policy of developing SOEs into national champions. >That's not really relevant to high state finance, especially internationally. You have that backwards international high finance is not relevant to socialist labor certificates.

>>1330101 >I don't believe China can be the cause of capital flight from the core countries Then why didn't it happen until neolib ideologues rose to power in China, at which point the #1 destination for the offshoring which started that very year from NATO was suddenly and continuously the thankless shoulders of Chinese proles? The answer is, because the CCP was involved in every step of neoliberalism's global coup in 1972. >They did not originate neoliberalism and they do not perpetuate it A KEK, a worn out KEK is my only comment. >the Soviets had a higher level of insufficient commitment Or insufficient chutzpah to continue pretending they're communists >trade agreements which are foreign policy No they aren't, they are massive far-reaching rafts of legislation that impose both international and domestic policy, or even directly delegate domestic lawmaking powers to transnat orgs! Aside from writing new weaker laws into the books when the treaty is signed, that includes everything from mandating timetables for privatization of public utilities on pain of penalties, to allowing laws to be repealed if they're found "anticompetitive" by secret tribunals that businesses can sue entire nations in. And that's just direct intervention. There's also, obviously, the massive indirect effect of porkies here and abroad having access to transnational arbitrage in standard of life, corruption, and human rights, which gives them once unprecedented leeway to freely crush organized labor and stomp on the faces of workers. >i don't know what that means A common term in China for their hereditary aristos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princelings >The only thing that existed were national labor movements Are you sure you're a leftist m8? >Until 2019 Not seeing it. Revenues, market cap, and employment for SOEs are still stagnant or plunging in every graph: https://chinadashboard.gist.asiasociety.org/summer-2020/page/state-owned-enterprise

>>1330107 >Then why didn't it happen until neolib ideologues rose to power in China. When neoliberalism came to Russia, the factories closed, the workers became unemployed and died in the streets. When neoliberalism came to the core capitalist countries the factories closed and the workers survived on wellfare. In China the workers got higher wages and more prosperity. Neoliberalism made life worse everywhere it went, except in China ? If the same thing is happening in China as everywhere else, why are the results so different ? >they are massive far-reaching rafts of legislation that impose both international and domestic policy Only governments can materially enforce domestic laws, the rest is idealism. >China hereditary aristos but it's a republic ? >muh graphs They have increased control over strategic sectors and key industries.

>>1330314 Like I already said upthread >Russia >core capitalist countries Mature economies, reversion to global average would obviously be bad for them. >China Backwater with a sperglord in charge, accession to global average was good for them and development headed by literally anyone other than Mao Also, your observation that China did better under neoliberalism than most (indeed, I've previously agreed they've clung to some lingering protectionist policies that many other countries have discarded even faster under neoliberalism) only bolsters my argument that they had both opportunity and motive to be a key player in the ascent of neoliberalism. >Only governments can materially enforce domestic laws Sure, and governments can be strongarmed into amending those laws per the stipulations of treaties they sign. >but it's a republic ? To an extent >They have increased control over strategic sectors and key industries Sure, while the size of China's state sector shrinks in both absolute and relative terms nonstop, as it has throughout the neolib era.

>>1330317 >Mature economies, reversion to global average would obviously be bad for them. >China accession to global average was good for them. Neoliberalism was as bad for less developed countries. The transnational bourgeoisie double dipped. >Also, your observation that China did better under neoliberalism than most, is because they've clung to some lingering protectionist policies. China is less protectionist than capitalist core countries. The special sauce of their success, is more political control over economic planning. >Sure, and governments can be strongarmed The worst strongarming tactics like devastating sanctions have no effect. Countries enforce domestic laws however they want. Sanctions cause civilian deaths and are legally warcrimes that void contractual duties anyway. If all national governments formed a world government international agreements could become enforceable laws. Every state has to volunteer adherence to international law to begin the formation of a world government. The United states government as the most influential factor has formally ruled that out so trade agreements and international law stay pinky promises for the foreseeable future. >China's state sector The Chinese state owned economy has grown its share in strategic and key industries. The private economy has a bigger share of industries without strategic value. A toy factory and a steal factory can be worth the same in money, but the steal factory has more political importance.

>Modern Monetary Theory HAHA THIS IDEA IS SOOOOO BAD THAT'S WHY I READ ABOUT IT 100 TIMES AND SHOWED IT TO ALL MY FRIENDS AND SPENT HOURS MAKING SCREENSHOTS OF IT >Modern Monetary Theory LMAO IT SOUNDS SO RETARDED THAT I CAN'T STOP READING ABOUT IT >Modern Monetary Theory >Modern Monetary Theory >Modern Monetary Theory >Modern Monetary Theory >Modern Monetary Theory

>>1328673 Indeed, the problem here would be understanding that their exists a limit to taxation with regards to the profit of enterprise, hence, when this begins to halter its growth, or either they raise the price level, or if it is impossible, then the capitalist class is forced to fight against labour in order to maintain the structure of production.

>>1327674 Swedish win

All this thread proves to me is that leftists, even the ones smart enough to elucidate properly the intricacies of something like MMT, are not actually pro-revolution. Actually, they actively seek to maintain the status quo, which benefits and maintains a stable order in which wealth is pareto distributed and largely in the hands of highly financialised and incestuous corporate structures, and administered by banks, whereas the right seeks to tear down banks. The right is quixotic in its endeavor, because wealth and resources will never not be pareto distributed about a population, at least they have their hearts and minds directed at revolution. An even better example of this incongruity, and certainly more visceral, is the disparity between the reactions of the left toward the summer 2020 riots and the storming of the capital. Again, both were largely carried out by naive brainlets for all the wrong reasons, but the latter was genuinely upsetting to leftists and the establishment, which was plain to see, as while it was roundly decried as a terrorist attack and military was sent in immediately, the former was lauded by corporations, media, and governmental actors.

>>133289 And this asymmetry in emotional response derives precisely from the asymmetry in actual risk to capital/power (in this case, capitol) presented in either scenario. The wanton smashing and burning of insured corporate big box outlet malls and McSoyBerger #42069 vs physically threatening high ranking inner party officials. It speaks for itself.

>>1332894 >>1332894 And to go back on this earlier point about MMT, central banking is actually consistent with Marx's original notions. There is little that is actually capitalistic about them, and *much*, that is socialist.

>>1332894 >An even better example of this incongruity, and certainly more visceral, is the disparity between the reactions of the left toward the summer 2020 riots and the storming of the capital. Again, both were largely carried out by naive brainlets for all the wrong reasons, but the latter was genuinely upsetting to leftists and the establishment, which was plain to see, as while it was roundly decried as a terrorist attack and military was sent in immediately, the former was lauded by corporations, media, and governmental actors.

>>1332901 Yes.jpg

MMT is snake oil designed by the bourgeoisie to muddy the waters and denigrate the Marxist truth that labour is what creates value.

>>1332894 As has been repeated throughout the thread, MMT is =NOT A POLICY, it is a DESCRIPTION of how capitalism has actually functioned for the past century. The rightarded "muh federal reserve" LOLberts who want to attack the >highly financialised and incestuous corporate structures, and administered by banks Are flailing against a phantasmal misconception of it that hasn't existed since the 1800s >>1332927 >the Marxist truth that labour is what creates value Which is totally orthogonal to (and compatible with) the mechanisms of debt accounting and reallocation MMT describes

>>1332987 >>1332987 >>1332987 >it's a description not a policy So says you. This is tantamount to saying >D00D, drapetomania is totally just a material description of reality and not a way of weaponizing a socially constructed "psycopathology" to benefit the owning class lmao!! Also, the federal reserve is merely a group of the leading banks who collude openly to fix rates, among other cartel-like behavior. The concern is fundamentally with the behavior of banks as they relate to markets. And again, there is nothing in this that contradicts core Marxist theory. Ergo, marx's chief concern isn't and was never to attack the heart of financial capital.

MMT is a correct description of how the fascist American state currently functions. Which begs the question why the American state doesn't fix all the issues the MMT-activists beg it to?: it doesn't give a shit. Not if Trump won, not if Biden won, not if Bernie won, not if anyone else won. Pain is the point

>>1333041 We aren't the ones peddling hoary old warmed over goldbuggerer propaganda about "muh deficit spending", "muh hyperinflation", "muh sound money", etc. from back when porky was flailing against bimetallism in the 19th century. >the federal reserve is merely a group of the leading banks who collude openly to fix rates Which basically doesn't matter, because interest rates are irrelevant to the most important mechanism by which inflation is adjusted. If you refuse to open your eyes to how the world actually works, you will never be able to win a fight against anyone who does. >>1333121 Part of the reason monetarily sovereign economies such as the USA (and economies that could [re]gain monetary sovereignty) aren't fixed, is because porky lies about how these economies actually function and what their real limits are. Understanding MMT gives the people a powerful tool to deny such excuses and demand better.

>>1333233 I am not in favor of begging fascists for anything. Ever. We simply organize and reduce hours of labor and drive up wages on our terms, no asking.

>>1333233 >Which basically doesn't matter, because interest rates are irrelevant to the most important mechanism by which inflation is adjusted. And what is that mechanism?

>>1333487 Among other things, the most important mechanisms are the sovereign monopolies on issuance (i.e.: spending) and taxation. Watch the 6-minute vid linked from the 2nd post ITT for a good quick explanation, or read the PDF for a longer one.