Spend then tax is a different paradigm which informs a position that deficits don’t *inherently* cause problems. Tax then spend informs a position that they basically do, otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about a singular black hole in the economy every time there is a budget.

Call it MMT, call it what you want if that makes it easier for you. How can’t you see the point being made here?

Imagine we did a one off tax to the richest 10,000 persons on the planet and took enough money to match our current tax intake (assuming they’re ok with that) while eliminating taxes for everyone else. Is there no inflationary impact of this bc you matched the currency intake & expenditure?

Can you explain why you think it doesn’t matter? If you’re basing your policy around revenue collection then does that not imply a very fixed relationship/ 1-1 between money and real resource? Does it not imply that all spending is equally inflationary and all tax receipt equally lowering demand?

I’m not particularly against selling bonds to reduce demand, reduce inflationary risk and give headway for more spending. But I don’t think that answers my Q

Jonathan, the difference here is more than semantic. It shifts debates from spending based on revenue collection to one which is based around real available resources. Why would that not be meaningful?

There are many good reasons for wealth taxes, and imo those are even more starkly propositioned by an MMT lens than in the mainstream debate. Likewise a shift to focus on real resources rather than an imaginary “government debit card”… seems more cogent in MMT than elsewhere IMO.

But I don’t think handwaving that “it’s all more complex” than MMT is a good objection. You can always find out more details and intricacies about economics but it’s a hell of a lot closer to how economies work than other descriptions over the last 50 years.

I don’t disagree that MMT can be used lazily and bring one to some incomplete conclusions, IMO this article doesn’t do much to explain why he thinks it *isn’t* straightforwardly a description of how economies are working. Yes, pieces have been tacked on e.g. allowing pvt banks to create temp money

Omg haha lol!

It’s a waste of your own time to get mad at straw men.

For what reason are you so confident about two nuclear powers going to war with one another? We’re not preparing to give Russia everything they want, we’re saying it’s the obvious one scenario above all that we have to avoid. We’re so incredibly fortunate that Nazi Germany did not have nukes.

I take your point, and I think it’s a fair opinion. I just also think it’s a fair opinion to look at the politics of Europe and see that driving toward militarisation at expense of other societal priorities, at the same time as far right parties are surging, warrants critique.