If all the money ends up in hands of billionaires and their corporations and there will be no money in hands of regular plebs…
Who do you think will have to pay the taxes? Also, the people would figure out a different way of trading or currency. And with that one getting taxed, all the billionaire’s money become worthless.

  • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
    2·
    2 days ago

    I have read about these ideas about money being created through loans before, but also read contradictory ideas.

    Since you seem to know a lot about the subject, would you happen to know of materials where I can learn more about the topic?

    • wewbull@feddit.ukEnglish
      71·
      2 days ago

      So these ideas are the basis of modern monetary theory (MMT) i.e. the theory of modern money, not that it’s a modern theory of money. There’s nothing very controversial here, in that the “theory” is just a description of how things work when you have a fiat currency. The controversial parts are what you do in your fiscal policy once you think about things this way.

      Stephanie Kelton is a vocal proponent of this style of framing. She’s been an economic advisor to Bernie Sanders and is the author of “The Deficit Myth” which explains these concepts. She also gave a TED talk on the concepts.

      Richard Murphy is a UK proponent who writes a blog and has a YouTube channel where he explains the concepts.

      There are others, but these two are a good way in. Searching for them, and also the the phrase “Modern Monetary Theory” should get you lots of talks, interviews and articles on both sides of the arguments.

      • JustTesting@lemmy.hogru.ch
        21·
        2 days ago

        Uhm, should probably mention that MMT is a relatively fringe theory not supported by most mainstream economists. Saying “there’s nothing controversial here” seems more than a bit disingenous…

        • wewbull@feddit.ukEnglish
          3·
          16 hours ago

          How banks lend money isn’t controversial. How governments spend and collect money isn’t controversial. Those are just points of fact. The controversial part is the government being able to spend before it has tax levels which “support” the spending. That’s what I meant. MMT says that’s an available choice. That’s all.

          Many mainstream economists will say that unchecked spending is reckless and you risk hyperinflation. Now we’re in to policy choices though. Regardless, if you spend without worrying about the other side of the equation (tax) they’d be right. However, that’s a strawman argument because that’s not what is being said.

          I’ll be honest, I’ve yet to hear a convincing argument against MMT, and I’ve looked. I started off sceptical, but I now think it’s a useful framing tool. Every counter I’ve seen doesn’t address what it actually states, rather what they imagine it states (normally unchecked spending). If anyone has seen a good factual argument against MMT I’d be interested.