Hello, Hubris! Thanks for responding, it's always great to hear from you. In the US what we have is the worst of both worlds. Our money is generated by bankers, who issue mortgages out of thin air that we repay with 30 (or 60 combined) years of labor. In the meantime they retain free ownership of the house and have no social obligation for how they use their profits, which are equal to the cost of the house (and 94% of all dollars issued). That's not just capitalism but feudalism.
But then, from the money we eke back from them with our labor, we pay taxes, from which we expect to socialize the costs of all the harms they've created: poor health, homelessness, need for corporate working papers (aka degree), aging useless eaters, etc.
What my system does, which could be called anarchy, federalism, libertarianism, community self-governance or small-scale sovereignty, is take back mortgages and money creation as THE exclusive and essential privilege of gov't, and decentralizes it. Then it allows communities to generate a local credit into the community that can't exceed the debts, taxes and cash reserves.
How a community uses that credit is up to them but I recommend modeling the plan before implementing it because the goal is to maximize the times your credit circulates before getting sucked out. The education episode talks about some of my ideas for my community but this one on The Economics of Anarchy, talks more about the whole plan: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-economics-of-anarchy
Oh, please! You've fallen for the "money is created by bankers" myth, completely overlooking the US Constitution: Article 1, Section 8, which states "Only Congress has the right to mint coin [create the currency - they used coins in 1783]."
Learn Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and get your facts straight.
Susan, we already had a very long conversation about this on another thread, where I talked about how that's been interpreted literally by the Supreme Court as only coins and we talked at length about MMT. But the question under discussion is whether students are at fault for getting a college education at all, whether government is at fault, or whether a for-profit economic system is at fault. What do you (and MMT) say about that, and how would education be (or is already) funded under MMT?
"Under MMT": Since MMT Is an empirical description of the current monetary system, whatever way college is being funded at this time is the way it's being funded "under MMT."
However long our former discussion may have been, it seems that I need to give you some more time or information to understand that MMT isn't something you "do." It's a description of what already IS.
"An empirical description" means that MMT economists look at the monetary system the way another scientist would look at a microorganism through a microscope. It's not something that you implement, any more than a microscope is something that you implement.
It's just looking and describing.
This is a different approach than classical economics, in which a Great Man would describe his theory of how the economy works, or how it SHOULD work, and then subsequent scholars would argue for or against the theory, until another Great Man came along and offered a new theory.
MMT scholars stick to What Is.
Does this help to explain why asking how college would be funded "under MMT" is not a question? It simply doesn't apply.
P.S. The Supreme Court is now into a very literal interpretation of the Constitution in many areas.
Hello, Hubris! Thanks for responding, it's always great to hear from you. In the US what we have is the worst of both worlds. Our money is generated by bankers, who issue mortgages out of thin air that we repay with 30 (or 60 combined) years of labor. In the meantime they retain free ownership of the house and have no social obligation for how they use their profits, which are equal to the cost of the house (and 94% of all dollars issued). That's not just capitalism but feudalism.
But then, from the money we eke back from them with our labor, we pay taxes, from which we expect to socialize the costs of all the harms they've created: poor health, homelessness, need for corporate working papers (aka degree), aging useless eaters, etc.
What my system does, which could be called anarchy, federalism, libertarianism, community self-governance or small-scale sovereignty, is take back mortgages and money creation as THE exclusive and essential privilege of gov't, and decentralizes it. Then it allows communities to generate a local credit into the community that can't exceed the debts, taxes and cash reserves.
How a community uses that credit is up to them but I recommend modeling the plan before implementing it because the goal is to maximize the times your credit circulates before getting sucked out. The education episode talks about some of my ideas for my community but this one on The Economics of Anarchy, talks more about the whole plan: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-economics-of-anarchy
Oh, please! You've fallen for the "money is created by bankers" myth, completely overlooking the US Constitution: Article 1, Section 8, which states "Only Congress has the right to mint coin [create the currency - they used coins in 1783]."
Learn Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and get your facts straight.
Susan, we already had a very long conversation about this on another thread, where I talked about how that's been interpreted literally by the Supreme Court as only coins and we talked at length about MMT. But the question under discussion is whether students are at fault for getting a college education at all, whether government is at fault, or whether a for-profit economic system is at fault. What do you (and MMT) say about that, and how would education be (or is already) funded under MMT?
"Under MMT": Since MMT Is an empirical description of the current monetary system, whatever way college is being funded at this time is the way it's being funded "under MMT."
However long our former discussion may have been, it seems that I need to give you some more time or information to understand that MMT isn't something you "do." It's a description of what already IS.
"An empirical description" means that MMT economists look at the monetary system the way another scientist would look at a microorganism through a microscope. It's not something that you implement, any more than a microscope is something that you implement.
It's just looking and describing.
This is a different approach than classical economics, in which a Great Man would describe his theory of how the economy works, or how it SHOULD work, and then subsequent scholars would argue for or against the theory, until another Great Man came along and offered a new theory.
MMT scholars stick to What Is.
Does this help to explain why asking how college would be funded "under MMT" is not a question? It simply doesn't apply.
P.S. The Supreme Court is now into a very literal interpretation of the Constitution in many areas.