• neptune@dmv.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    10 months ago

    Interesting.

    The idea of the government telling banks to change people’s bank values is a bad example, but I think the core is accurate. The government has a role to play in the economy and we have only decided arbitrarily that taxes will fund coffers that get spent “responsibly”. But there is really no necessary corelation here. We have just sort of arrived here, at this metaphor, to make sure the government doesn’t do something stupid like buy everyone a puppy.

    For those who believe in markets, keeping the government largely operating within markets (taxes, expenditures, deficits, etc) is a useful proxy. But when the markets are so far distorted and the lives of poor and working people are at stake? Yeah it’s clear something has to change.

    • xapr@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yes, the example is a pretty poor one, but the idea has been around for a while. I’m surprised that the author didn’t even mention it, since it’s become more mainstream over the last few years, with books and academic papers written about it, and some economists adopting the idea. It’s called Modern Monetary Theory (i.e., “MMT”).

    • HumanPenguin@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Out of interest. Where do I sign on to this buy every one a puppy stress reduction initiative. That is some spending I can get behind. ;)

      • millie@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Please no. It’s hard enough to exist in the world as someone with allergies. Also, pets being just kind of shoved at people without their input seldom goes well.