4 ms·

Not an economist or a socialist but your question: It's one where the government has unilateral authority to marshal all of a society's resources. Do we really

by skh 8y ago

Not an economist or a socialist but your question: It's one where the government has unilateral authority to marshal all of a society's resources. Do we really want, say, Trump to be able to print as much money as he wants to fund his wall? assumes that government would be a single person deciding. If power were sufficiently spread out it seems to me that having government allocate resources doesn't have to be worse than the current system.

woah 8y ago
The problem with the government allocating resources is that it cannot do so efficiently
- Zooper 8y ago
  Sounds like we need better governments.
  - excalibur 8y ago
    We'll just put AI in charge. What could go wrong?
- indigo945 8y ago
  At this point, only eight people have more than half of the world's net worth. Can these eight people allocate resources more efficiently than the government could?
manfredo 8y ago
Yes, if power were spread out then it wouldn't be an issue. But the whole premise of MMT is to give the government a means of consuming more resources with the actual cost being obfuscated. Taxes are a very transparent way of understanding the cost of government. You can see the money coming out of your pocket at the end of the year. MMT is a means of obfuscating that cost. The average voter doesn't have as good as sense of what printing a trillion dollars does to inflation. Effectively every MMT proponent assumes that MMT will give the government greater ability to consume resources. Think about all the promises MMT proponents usually try to make: universal healthcare, a government provided job for every person that wants one.